One thing that I didn't make sufficiently clear--for which I, yes, apologize--is that I'm making a methodological argument about learning, not a play to exclude war opponents from the nation's op-ed pages and blog comments sections. Nor a call to start randomly invading smaller countries in order to find out which ones we can hold. Failure, and how societies handle it, is a topic that I happen to be deeply interested in, so I've done a fair amount of research on it.
Obviously, there are people who were right about the war for the right reasons, and we should examine what their thought process was--not merely the conclusions they came to, but how they got there. Other peoples' opposition was animated by principles that may be right, but aren't really very helpful: the pacifists, the isolationists, the reflexive opponents of Republicans or the US military. Within the limits on foreign policy in a hegemonic power, these just aren't particularly useful, again, regardless of whether you are metaphysically correct.
"It won't work" is the easiest prediction to get right; almost nothing does. The thought process that tells you something probably won't work is not always a good way to figure out what will, even if you were right for the right reasons, as I agree lots of people were. That's why libertarians have a great track record at predicting which government programs will fail (almost all of them) and a lousy track record at designing ones that do work.
On the other hand, "I thought it would work for X reason", when it didn't work, is, I think, a lesson you can carry into both decisions about what to do, and what not to do. On a deeper level, understanding the unconscious cognitive biases that lead smart and well meaning people to believe that things which will not work, will work, is a very good way to prevent yourself from making the same mistake.
America gets a lot of things right, I think, precisely because it includes people who have gotten it badly wrong. Most societies shun people who err; a senior business executive in Germany who has been attached to a failing company should not expect ever to be trusted with responsibility again. America, on the other hand, is a nation of failures, and has always been more hospitable than anywhere else to the people who made an honest mistake, even a lot of them. I believe that our economy works better than our foreign policy process precisely because foreign policy tends to be decided by either the successes or the failures, but never both.
First commenter to totally miss the point in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
"....who made an honest mistake"
Yea like murdering close to a million Iraqis. It's an honest mistake you know? Oops I did it again!
Let's give these 3 clowns (McSame, The articulate dude and Billary) a few chances to try a few more honest mistake, shall we?
Megan, America is not a nation of failures; it's a failed nation. Period.
Gawd, you don't get it do you?
The either/or paradigm that has been the American policital/foreign affairs (probably internal affairs too, but I won't comment) model since 1948 has hobbled the American ability to be flexible and to see what is happening.
It may be, and I know I am asking for trouble, connected in some not defined way with the eschatological element of Christian preaching in the same time.
Please continue exploring the grey areas where most of us live.
That's why libertarians have a great track record at predicting which government programs will fail (almost all of them) and a lousy track record at designing ones that do work.
Libertarians, I would say, have had relatively little opportunity to design government programs, but where libertarian principles have been applied, the programs have worked better. Emissions trading is a libertarian idea, as is the EITC. Ditto school vouchers.
Which "libertarian designed" government programs have failed, Megan?
Failure, and how societies handle it, is a topic that I happen to be deeply interested in, so I've done a fair amount of research on it
Maybe you could start off by telling us what you mean by failure.
The Iraq War wasn't a failure. Most government programs aren't failures. On balance, people are better off. If the endeavor didn't achieve everything everyone hoped it would (or even said it would) doesn't mean it is a failure.
I supported, and still do, our president. Ok, going to war in Iraq probably not something I would have done in the same position, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a chance or that it was inherently a bad idea. Conquest is something that has been done it the past, but you really have to want it to achieve it and you have to execute occupations with competence above all. Someone like Gen. Douglas MacArthur or Gen. Dwight Eisenhower could have probably pulled it off. But those were great men who learned in the environment of a world war.
We overestimated the Iraqis themselves (that Saddam was still in power might have been a clue that they couldn't run things on their own, but I digress). It would have been swell if the Iraqis would have embraced freedom, self organized in a multi-cultural, democratic, personal rights and freedoms way for their own nation and kept services running with modest help from the US, but they didn't and probably don't have the slightest clue about how to go about it.
It wasn't the biggest mistake we ever made or will ever make by a long shot. And frankly we did learn (and are learning) a lot. We know more about Iraq and the tribal structure of power in the Mid East than we ever did before. We learned what things work and what things can go wrong in occupations. We learned a lot about counter insurgency warfare.
These lessons may prove very useful. The men and women that learn mistakes from today may be able to use what they learned tomorrow. Hopefully they won't have to.
Megan -
Perhaps I missed this post, but before we discuss why you were wrong, perhaps you could explain how you can now be so sure that you were wrong. It's one thing to look back at how events compared to our expectations - the military invasion portion was easier than expected, the subsequent rebuilding has been much more difficult than expected, etc. But it's too soon to be sure that this was a bad idea overall (i.e. worse than the alternative of leaving Saddam in power with the sanctions crumbling), especially given the progress from the surge.
A related post would be what you think we should do now, given that it has been very difficult but that we are now making substantial progress. Will the Iraqis accomplish more if we constantly threaten to abandon them, as the Democrats claim? Or should we commit to support them, as McCain has done?
Most societies shun people who err; a senior business executive in Germany who has been attached to a failing company should not expect ever to be trusted with responsibility again. America, on the other hand, is a nation of failures, and has always been more hospitable than anywhere else to the people who made an honest mistake, even a lot of them.
This is an interesting theme to pursue, but your decision to come down on the American side of this question feels reflexive to me; it echoes the '90s consensus that fluid, deregulated Anglo-Saxon models of capitalism represented the bold future and the more regulated, relationship-based European models needed to open up in order to grow faster.
But Paul Krugman's blog today uses precisely this contrast of American versus German traditions of credit and business management, and notes that the global credit crisis engendered by the SIV mess in the US is turning German and other bankers against American models. Krugman calls it the securities market version of the Chinese export scandals: the US exported bad, poisoned securities to the world due to regulatory failure. But another way to look at it is that the world has simply gotten too small for the US to have its own permissive attitudes towards failure, because it leads to a crisis of confidence in the value of American assets on the part of foreign investors.
Anyway, I know from my fruitless experience trying to get a credit card in Holland that the difference in attitude of Europeans and Americans towards credit risk is very real. But there may be a referendum taking place right now on which attitude the world prefers, and I'm not sure that referendum will come down, now, in the same way it would have in 1999.
Magan,
As others mentioned. Its way, way to soon to call Iraq a failure. Thats like saying South Korea was a failure in 1955. Call me in 2013. Expect us to be there, even after the Dems when in Nov, for the next 50 years, just like Germany and Japan.
Now calling certain tactics failures. Yep. Certain decisions made years ago. Yep. But like in all wars you learn and we are prevailing. The latest fighting in Basra is a great sign that the Iraqi's may soon have comlete control of their country.
Call it a failure when they're pulling our guys off the roofs on helicopters and the winners are killing millions.
Islam will change
But there may be a referendum taking place right now on which attitude the world prefers, and I'm not sure that referendum will come down, now, in the same way it would have in 1999.
That might actually be good news for the US. Virtually every time a large block of nations have concluded that the open, experimental US model was wrong and sought to rectify its manifold failings in their own policies, they inevitably end up placing odious restrictions upon their own business environments -- and another generation of frustrated entreuprenuers immigrates here in order to explore their ideas with less restraint and greater rewards.
"It would have been swell if the Iraqis would have embraced freedom, self organized in a multi-cultural, democratic, personal rights and freedoms way for their own nation and kept services running with modest help from the US"
Let's keep in mind that Iraqis had other problems to deal with besides just rebuilding. They had to deal with interference from Al Qaeda, from Iran, from Syria, etc. all aimed specifically at preventing them from succeeding in their rebuilding and unification efforts. Iraqis had been repeatedly told by Saddam that the US wanted to take their oil and women, and even US media constantly hinted that we mainly just wanted their oil, so it's no wonder that it took time for them to get to know us. With the bombing of the mosque in Samarra, the murders and kidnappings and car bombings and other constant, deliberate provocations to prevent Iraqis from coming together to rebuild, they have faced a difficult task.
At least the US tries to do the right thing. European leaders think unenforced (by themselves at least) treaties are the best thing ever because they provide a way to do nothing and still look good to their voters.
I wonder if the Atlantic would let you turn off comments. They only detract from your blog.
I happened to run across the old movie "Karthoum" with Charlton Heston as General Gordon. I was suprised to see how much of the story was on the political aspects (British, Egyptian and the Mahdi). Over the longer run the Madhi caused nothing but death and destruction for the whole area. Things haven't changed much in over 120 years. It seems we (the US) are being pilloried for taking a rather minor role in a much larger middle eastern conflict. If anything, western intervention helps damp down the larger loss of life.
The rapidly growing populations in the Muslim world need the kind of economic growth only western style economies can provide. Right now a lot of that is funneled through the somewhat stable Gulf Nations. It indirectly goes via remittances to Pakistan and other areas.
We will have only failed in Iraq if we decide we have failed.
For someone right for the right reasons, your colleague, James Fallows, fits the bill. His writing in this magazine made me very skeptical of the invasion and its aftermath.
Fallows gathered all the information and showed what we were getting into. It might have been a case of TMI causing caution. The administration was the exact opposite. Opposing views were excluded and the planning expressed wishes rather than possibilities.
I think sometimes you have to decide on a course of action even when all the facts aren't in. Waiting too long is the same as not acting. Time determines if it is a success or a failure. I regard the Iraq war as a failure. I'm judging from where we are now, how it played out and the effects on the Middle East.
Steve
Megan,
Cool. Unlike the rest of the commenters here.. I think you appear to have worked through a bunch here... I may not agree with all of your conclusions... nor will I ever probably have a set of values that makes me easily agree with you.. (old-school truman liberal--very much anti-this-war, but not against all wars.... i.e. a lot like Obama), but from all of my reading of these past couple of posts.. you seem to have gone through a process of realizing a lot about your own personal position back years ago...
and that's all that really matters, right.. because this is your own personal blog...
So.. enough about Iraq. You were wrong. You know why you were wrong, and hopefully, you will not make the same mistakes in the future.
Talk more about economics now. I still don't agree with you on many of your positions, but it's a lot less emotion laden, and much more of your specialty..
If you want to lay this whole thing to rest, you've gotta change the topic. People are going to comment on what's available, and what is available is this cacophony regarding the Iraq war. Its your blog; you have to be the one to end it. Please. This is so boring. This blog is a major component of my time killing repertoire when things get slow and for all practical purposes its been a wash all day.
Turning off comments would be a bogus thing to do. The debate is probably three-quarters of the fun.
Your premise exceeds your evidence. You have not demonstrated that going to war was itself a stupid idea in the first place.
I will grant that certain decisions in execution have been suboptimal. But it would appear, from the recent transformations in Iraq, particularly with regard to the Al Anbar Awakening, that in the aggregate, these decisions were good enough. America is still in the fight, Al Qaeda is increasingly out of it.
I am with those who point out that it is still far, farrrrrr too early to determine the long range consequences of the decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam in 2003.
I would also point out that had we not invaded in 2003, that would not also have precluded an even more overwhelming case for war from developing in 2004.
I am prepared to draw one conclusion though: Anyone who thinks the US is responsible for the murder of nearly 1 million Iraqis is an idiot.
I think this methodological exercise may not be very useful.
So I was thinking about blackjack just now. Blackjack is a game where you don't have all the information necessary to make the right decision about whether to hit or stay; you have your own initial point total, and the dealer's, but that's about it-- you don't know what the next cards are going to be. So oftentimes, making the objectively correct decision will still lose you money, and vice-versa. Put it this way: Hitting on a 19 is always a bad idea, because you'll probably bust. It doesn't retroactively turn into a good idea if the next card turned up happens to be an ace; it'll just be a bad idea that would have panned out in that instance. And likewise, if a correct decision loses you money, it was still a correct decision given the knowledge you had at the time you made it.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the fact that the Iraq war didn't pan out doesn't necessarily mean it was the incorrect decision given our knowledge at the time. If it was, in fact, the correct decision ("blackjack correct"), then this methodological exercise will really only hurt our understanding of situations like this. (I'm not saying that it was the correct decision, necessarily-- but considering that the majority of the U.S. population was for the war, it doesn't seem implausible that the evidence indicated it was our best move.) If it was, then this whole deal will just be an exercise in hindsight bias-- saying "well, clearly the war was a bad move because of X, Y, and Z," but neglecting factors A, B, C, and D which were for the war.
And, of course, we have to account for the role of execution in how the war turned out.
I think it was Napoleon who said, "It's better to be lucky than smart."
Actually, in a hegemonic power, the people who argue against hegemony are the ones we most need to hear from. Otherwise, if everybody runs on the same assumptions, you get correlated errors (which reinforce) rather than uncorrelated errors (that cancel out). Standard "Wisdom of Crowds" theory.
And it's the best argument for why war should be a very, very last resort, the sort of decision that is only made after a very high threshold has been reached: Because war, of all things, is especially unlikely to work. We were nowhere near the threshold for something as drastic as war. And so many of the allegedly penitent hawks show little evidence that they yet comprehend this. War isn't just something that you might get wrong, so think a bit more carefully when planning the next one. It's something that you should only be doing if there's really no other option.
thoreau,
I see this a lot, that war should be the last option. I, for one, supported the invasion, and I agree with your point. What I don't get is how you move from that premise to the conclusion that war supporters don't believe this.
It seemed plausible at the time that
A) Saddam had some WMDs
B) Sanctions were harsh
C) Due to B the Sanctions were on the verge of being lifted even over US protest
D) Saddam would re-start his programs if the sanctions were lifted
E) Saddam was financially backing terrorists
F) Saddam was allowing terrorists (see: Zarqawi) safe haven
G) An Iraq without sanctions, with known terrorists, with reconstituted weapons programs would pose an unacceptable risk.
H) The UN would not support any further containment, and once the sanctions were lifted, it would be too late.
None of those points was on their face wrong, and none run counter to war as a last resort.
If you want to lay this whole thing to rest, you've gotta change the topic. People are going to comment on what's available, and what is available is this cacophony regarding the Iraq war.
Thing is, she also has email, and she's hinted in the past that it tends to fill up with whatever topic is popular -- especially if another blog recently linked to one of her past posts on the matter.
I expect a couple days' worth of venting may, in addition to giving the hostess an outlet for some of her reactions, give the commentariat a bit of chance to vent in the comments (within reason) and exhaust the topic for a while, so that future time CAN be spent in more productive areas.
My comment was directed to Megan, Skullberg. Megan is a reasonable person. If you think that those talking points you recited lead to the conclusion that was was a necessary last resort, then you are a Fox News fan who boarded a time machine in early 2003 and traveled to 2008. Or, as Dick Cheney might say, a "dead ender."
Megan, I can't fault you for the commenters you attract. Most of my commenters think that Canadian healthcare is TEH BESTEST THING EVAR!
If you think that those talking points you recited lead to the conclusion that was was a necessary last resort, then you are a Fox News fan
He might merely be a C-SPAN fan, since Democrats in Congress were using those same talking points right until the very second a Republican got elected.
The thought process that tells you something probably won't work is not always a good way to figure out what will, even if you were right for the right reasons, as I agree lots of people were.
One of the frustrating things about this war has been the ever-shifting rationale. We've moved from imminent danger and WMDs, to spreading democracy, to humanitarian mission (the idea that Iraq simply needs to be "better off" than they were under Hussein for this to be successful.
Excepting the original "imminent threat," war is an incredibly poor choice for achieving most of these goals. For a threat, it remains a viable last step, although it was unclear even at the time that there might not be other solutions.
So, discussions of "what will work," applied reflectively, are difficult to come have.
Discussions of what will work for us in our current situation seem to be divided largely on whether one believes it is possible to succesfully install a peaceful government. If you believe this, then the sacrifice may be worth the outcome. Obviously, if you don't believe this, every loss is simply additional folly.
I once read a list (http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_6.html; scroll down to Stewart Brand's entry) of relatively well-known or respected intellectuals asking what their "dangerous idea" was. One of essays was advocacy of a kind of historical study called "Applied History". Students would examine thought processes and cycles of events of historical turning points and then apply the lessons to current politics and policy-making.
Apparently there is only one book about this topic, called "Thinking in Time" by Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May. Your latest posts have reminded me of this proposed field. I really respect your examination of your thought process, and all of our thought processes, in the hope of learning something. Thank you.
Everyone needs to read Phillip E. Tetlock's book "Expert Political Judgment"
I don't have much more time for this, part your part:
"It seemed plausible at the time that
A) Saddam had some WMDs"[1]
Is just plain wrong. In fact, the more time that passed, the less plausible it seemed. The aluminum tubes, the bogus yellowcake, Powell's unconvincing presentations, etc., it looked to me as if the administration was trying to manufacture a case.
Contrast this with Kennedy's WMD moment forty-odd years ago: He had detailed unambiguous evidence, photographic and otherwise. And he was believed on the strength of that evidence.
Ask yourself this: if Bush had presented the sort of evidence Kennedy did to the U.N., do you think there would have been the slightest hesitation in marching in there to disarm him? That a 'coalition of the willing' would have been assembled toot sweet? Or that people like would have failed to support his decision?
Not a chance.
And in fact, many people were openly skeptical, here and abroad about the 'evidence' for WMD. Is anyone at this point trying to seriously maintain that us skeptics had no logical justification for our disbelief, that we disbelieved on principle?
That's not just wrong, that's insulting as well.
[1]A distinction also needs to be made on the type of WMD. The war supporters often waffle on this, saying that we didn't know if Saddam was going to get the Bomb or not, and most citizens are justifiably leery of having someone like Saddam having that sort of destructive potential. But point out that this Just Ain't So, and the focus switches to biologicals, and when it's pointed out that those aren't exactly the threat they've been made out to be, i.e. nuclear, the goalposts are moved again to "This shows Saddam is in violation of the accords, so we have the perfect right under previously reach agreement s to invade."
thoreau,
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, I don't watch any cable news and haven't listened to any non-NPR talk radio in years.
The time machine comment is odd to me. I agree that things were wrong in hindsight, but I don't know of any of those statements that was on it's face wrong in March 2003, when that decision was being discussed. Making 2003's decisions with 2008's data is a great idea, but not really workable in reality.
Can you point out which one of my "talking points" was uncontroversially wrong in March of 2003?
Of course, what anonymouse doesn't understand is that the demomcrats had good reasons for this
Geezus, why do you think (or pretend to think) we're a bunch of robots parroting a party line, no matter how much we say otherwise?
Personally, I never saw anything before the election that remotely resemebled a claim that Saddam had - or would soon have - nuclear weapons.
So let's see you back this one up.
That being said, if no proof was forthcoming for this claim that was supposedly made by the Democrats, I'd be just as skeptical, and for the same reasons. I most certainly would _not_ go along with that just because I haven't voted Republican since Bush I.
That's pure idiocy, of the sort people label "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
And in fact, many people were openly skeptical, here and abroad about the 'evidence' for WMD. Is anyone at this point trying to seriously maintain that us skeptics had no logical justification for our disbelief, that we disbelieved on principle?
"Many people" became skeptical only when it became clear that their political opponents would be able to use the evidence to specific ends. We needn't rehash the public statements and voting records of many prominent Congressional democrats just now, as that angle has already been done to death. Whether you wish to be included among that number is at your own discretion, but the only thing "wrong...[and] insulting" here is your post facto distortion of the record.
SoV,
I never said they were facts, I said it was a rational plausible belief in March 2003.
I don't believe this is controversial.
I know the war supporters announced that this was blindingly obvious that he didn't, but I spent plenty of time listening to foreign heads of state and politicians and I repeatedly heard that they believed he had them, even when they did not support the use of force.
that shoudl be war opponents in the last paragraph
You do realize that I get to call you a complete and utter idiot, and that I will be right, and will enjoy doing so, until you point out where I've engaged in any distortion?
Nice of you to admit that you don't have any evidence for the earlier assertion, btw.
Well, that wasn't what I said at all. I think both sides had plenty of smart, well-informed people saying they were right. Both had all other kinds of people, but it certainly was plausible in early '03 to believe Iraq had WMD's.
What is this in reference to?
Mr Thieme, please cut it out. You may disagree all you please; you may not call other commenters names. I mean to have a civil comments section, and if I have to do so over the back of your cold, dead comments, I will.
I'm going to go through Skullberg's list point by point, but I'd like to make one thing clear at the outset.
My point isn't that only stupid people wanted to go to war. That's obviously wrong. My point is that (a) there was significant reason to doubt the factual bases on which the case for war rested, (b) the reasons being cited very rarely touched on actual threats to the US, and rested instead on the presumption that military action would bring humanitarian results, which is insane, and (c) given that wars are massively negative-sum games, doubt is more than enough reason to halt a rush to war.
A) Saddam had some WMDs
The head of the UN inspection team (Blix) said he didn't. The lead US expert on Saddam's weapons (Ritter) said he didn't.
Further, no one of any credibility claimed Saddam had nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons do not pose a threat to America, or to the region as a whole. Eliding the differences between weapons of truly mass destruction - nuclear - and weapons of much less power - chemical and biological - functions to create the illusion that a threat existed of much greater magnitude.
And, of course, Saddam didn't even have chemical or biological weapons, just as the lead international and American experts said.
D) Saddam would re-start his programs if the sanctions were lifted
Covered above. The existence of the programs was doubted by the most informed. The programs that posed a real threat of mass destruction were undoubtedly non-existent.
E) Saddam was financially backing terrorists
No, he was not. Saddam had no operative connections with al Qaeda.
If you're referring to Palestinian terrorists, then you're not referring to a threat to America, and you're referring to a connection which can be drawn much more clearly with regard to Saudi Arabia and other ostensible allies. No cause for war.
F) Saddam was allowing terrorists (see: Zarqawi) safe haven
In regions where his power was close to non-existent. Again, operative connections between Saddam and Zarqawi did not exist.
G) An Iraq without sanctions, with known terrorists, with reconstituted weapons programs would pose an unacceptable risk.
To whom? Chemical and biological weapons do not pose an unacceptable risk, and experts doubted they existed. There were no operative connections with al Qaeda.
Further, this war of disarmament which Skullberg suggested was obviously never on the table. The US did not go in and install a strongman, they immediately set about constructing permanent bases and extending American presence. Even if the above were a convincing reason to go to war, it was not a convincing reason to hold the war which the US held.
First, Skullberg, that previous comment was directed at anonymouse.
Second, what, precisely, was this 'plausible evidence' you speak of? I sure didn't see it.
Do you think that the reports of aluminum tubes 'to be used in a nuclear weapons program' was plausible? How about those reports about by yellow-cake?
How about repeated pleas to let the weapons inspectors finish their jobs before engaging in any overt hostilities, a matter of a few more months? The ones that were summarily rejected by the administration?
Those actions didn't make you the teensiest bit skeptical?
That's fine Megan. Now how about invoking some sanctions against anonymouse for his abusive implications that I'm deliberately lying?
In case you haven't figured it out, I don't take kindly to being called a liar.
Yellow cake? Ya'll bloggers don't believe me, I got some yellow cake right here!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WqBjbM1f9ZQ
It might be worth reading Walter Lippman's book U. S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic. It was written in 1942 and its policy recommendations are no longer relevant, but it drives home one overarching message: don't take on foreign policy commitments unless you have the military force needed to fulfill them. It doesn't make any difference what your policy is. If it requires force to carry it out and if you're unable or unwilling to supply the force, your policy will fail. Bush's war in Iraq is a classic example.
I showed you two quotes from that timeframe, from people high in government, who did and didn't support the invasion. When Chirac, who was no lapdog tot he US on this, says that there is reason to believe those program were back in place, I give that some weight.
I'll pull more quotes if you wish, but let me know what criteria you need me to satisfy with them so you will agree that reasonable people disagreed over the presence of WMD's.
This comment section is so 2003-4.
Oh well, you tried.
Anonymouse isn't calling you names. You will note that I have not sanctioned you for your rather . . . enthusiastic criticisms of the other commenters. But try to keep a thin lid of civility on it.
DivGuy,
What I find amusing is you 'refute' my points by saying, in effect: yes, but this other thing isn't true.
I never said believing he had nukes was plausible, I said WMD's.
I never said he had operational ties to AQ, I said he was supporting terrorists. Which you admitted, and which allows them to fund whatever they want. The extent of that threat is debatable, but also beside the point.
I never said he had operational ties to Zarqawi, just he was allowing him safe harbor. Abu Nidal is another instance.
And for the last one, unacceptable is relative, and your threshold doesn't allow you to assume that war supporters didn't see war as a last resort.
That was my original point, thoreau through it out there that war should be a lat resort and it was our folly to not believe that. I simply am making a case for believing that, and believing that our options were exhausted before that.
So, to rephrase your argument:
(a) Saddam might have had chemical or biological weapons
(b) Saddam provided some funds for Palestinian terrorists
That, to you, is reason enough to go to war?
I made my refutation as I did because I couldn't imagine that someone could possibly think that what remains of your case constituted justification for war. Please explain, I am utterly at a loss.
I guess there's also
(c) certain terrorist groups with no operative ties to Saddam existed in Iraq
It seems that (c) could be attacked or deterred without any attack on Saddam, and it's quite obvious that the war did not serve to weaken terrorist groups in Iraq.
So Megan, as long as I don't outright call someone an idiot, that if I merely insinuate that they are, just as anonymouse is insinuating that I am lying without outright calling me a liar, that's okay by you?
Make no mistake, that's exactly what anonymouse has done, and I don't see you denying it. Nor do I see how accusing someone of 'distorting' the record can be interpreted any differently.
I just want to be sure what the ground rules are.
Sorry for the broken-up style...
The entire concept of a pre-emptive war is based on a threat which must be dealt with in advance. The threat which Saddam posed, in your scenario, is non-existent.
He had no ties to terrorist groups that have ambitions against the US, so he was not a risk of arming such groups. He had no weapons capable of threatening the US. Saddam Hussein posed no meaningful threat to America, in your scenario. That utterly cuts the heart out of the justification for a pre-emptive war, because there was no threat to pre-empt.
Yes, or
a) Saddam HAD chemical weapons and was known to use them
b) Saddam supported terrorist attacks against US allies and potentially US resources int he region
and thus
c) a Sanctionless Saddam could provide those weapons to the very terrorists he was already financially supporting
And people did support a number of containment steps before the war, but with the imminent lifting of sanctions, what containment options were left open? With sanctions lifted, inspectors gone and a UN unwilling to intercede, what options would there be?
That won't work. You can't come in after the fact and say that, well, WMDs couldn't possibly include the "kinder, gentler" categories of the "poor man's nukes," bio and chemical weapons. By saying Saddam conceivably could have had B and C weapons still means that he had WMDs, which violated his obligations after the Gulf War of the 90s. Not only that, to claim that such weapons were not a real, direct threat to US interests ignores the fact that US and British forces were "in theater," enforcing the sanctions regime and no-fly zones.
DivGuy said: it's quite obvious that the war did not serve to weaken terrorist groups in Iraq.
It hasn't? Lotta dead AQI fighters prove you wrong.
Sigh. 'Plausible evidence' is pictures, bills of lading, manifests, artifacts obtained from physical sites. You know, like what Kennedy had when he confronted the Soviets over WMD in cuba?
Now, back at you: why didn't you think that people like Blix or Ritter were credible? Why didn't you think that the supposed physical evidence I mentioned, the aluminum tubes or the yellowcake documents being shown to be not evidence at all didn't count for much?
If someone is, shall we say, disenuous with the physical 'evidence' that they have, why doesn't that set off alarm bells?
Since I answered your question, I think it only fair you answer mine.
I don't have much more time for this, part your part:
"It seemed plausible at the time that
A) Saddam had some WMDs"[1]
Is just plain wrong.
Again, one of those places that appears to be held to be true by assertion, axiomatically. Since it's well known that at least some WMDs were found, of types and sizes that Saddam had denied having, it's on the face wrong. Since there weren't many of them found, you might have a case for a weaker assertion, but this kind of bald, false, statement makes it difficult to talk about.
SoV,
Ritter and inspectors had been absent from Iraq for 4 years at this point, and was no longer privy to government intelligence.
Blix was deceived before by Hussein, and his incompetence ultimately led to military action by the US. After that, we had no eyes on the ground. Also, he was brought in to review his own work.
But other than that, plenty of world leaders and people privy to classified intelligence believed there were WMD's. People opposed to the invasion still agreed that he had them, or at least most likely had them. This is not to say I didn't have doubts, or reservations, but that on balance it was PLAUSIBLE and RATIONAL to believe he had them.
This was my point, that those beliefs were reasonable to have, and that allowing a rogue state like Iraq to come out from under it's sanctions and inspections, possibly to lift the no fly zones, would be an unacceptable risk. If those things were going to stay in place, then we have a different discussion, but my recollection of the Iraq discussions in 2000 and 2001 were about lifting sanctions, and seemed to be drifting closer to that all the time.
I AM NOT DEFENDING THE WAR HERE! I am simply defending the notion that war supports can and did believe that war was the last option, and that the other options were exhausted, and they weren't crazy or naive for doing so.
The post reminds me of a story that was attributed to Thomas Watson of IBM (though I can't find a reference to it at the moment), about an employee who had made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. Watson was asked if he was going to fire him and he replied, "Fire him? Are you kidding? We just spent $600,000 training him!"
And what about the physical evidence? It's easy enough to give an opinion about the competence of certain people, and hope that diverts any other inquiries, but I'm not going to let you get off like that.
Now. Explain why 'evidence' like the aluminum tubes didn't give you any pause to consider the mendacity of the administration, or the competence of our so-called 'intelligence' agencies.
I would appreciate it if you would be straight here; I'm explaining exactly why I thought the reasons given for invading Iraq simply didn't hold up under reasonable scrutiny. I'm not asking you to defend your mistake; I'm merely asking why you gave certain 'evidence' that weights that you did.
Me, I'm pragmatic; if Saddam is whipping up fresh batches of sarin, I want some physical evidence. You have that sort of thing, I'm all ears.
I most certainly do _not_ rely on the testimony of other people, accepting that what they say must be true merely because of who they are. If, say Chirac says there is 'some reason' to believe an assertion is true, it's not enough for him to say that it's him saying it; I want to see the evidence that convinced them.
That's the way I think. You, apparenly, have the relative weights reversed, preferring unbacked testimony over physical evidence. Is this so? And if this is so, why do rank the importance of the evidence in this way?
I would say that the truth by assertion is all on your side. Since it's 'well-known' that these were found, it should be easy to find cites for, right? Cites like this maybe? Perhaps you were thinking of this? Or how about this?
Or, maybe, just maybe . . . do I here it? Maybe a teeny tiny admission that you were wrong?
SoV,
I can't tell you what physical evidence I did and did not inspect in the slow march to war. On that you can claim whatever victory you like. I do remember believing that at the time, it was the consensus of every major intelligence agency that Saddam had some WMD and WMD capabilities.
If the French, Germans, Israelis, Brits or anyone else had said they didn't believe this was the case I would have been more skeptical. I then heard Blix say at the UN that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace" and note they had never disclosed what happened to their Anthrax and 1,000 tons of VX gas.
Now Blix isn't the must trustworthy guy here, and I think some of that is simply CYA, but he was no war supporter.
Personally, I never saw anything before the election that remotely resemebled a claim that Saddam had - or would soon have - nuclear weapons. So let's see you back this one up.
Well, technically it's a bit tricky to "back up" what some anonymous Internet commenter "personally" saw or didn't see. But it's rather easy to show that people not known to be war hawks made the "claim" that Saddam might be pursuing nuclear weapons.
You've heard of John Kerry, right? He made a "claim" in that regard. As USA Today reported: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-02-11-dems-war-uast_x.htm
Now obviously in retrospect, Kerry was overstating the risk. Still, at the time, it wasn't as like totally obvious as some of the anti-war jerks have been claiming. If it really were that obvious that Saddam didn't have WMD, then not just Megan McArdle was the moron -- so was John Kerry and John Edwards and most of the Democratic leadership, not to mention Chirac. Also, keep in mind that after the first Gulf War, we made the alarming discovery that Saddam had been much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anyone had suspected.So back in 2003, the average informed citizen could rationally have thought, "Gee, I don't personally feel like I understand all of this tedious quibbling about the size of aluminum tubes and whatnot. But Saddam has proven before that he's capable of conducting WMD programs in secret; and people like John Kerry are absolutely convinced that Saddam is hot on the trail of nuclear weapons; and who am I to say they're all idiots? They are probably right, for all I know."
That wasn't an irrational or stupid way to think back in 2003, no matter how vigorously the obnoxious anti-war crowd tries to claim (in hindsight) that they had perfect knowledge at the time.
Sigh. It's not a matter of 'declaring victory'. I'm telling you that I place great store by physical evidence, relatively little by testimony from some presumed authority (although you have a, shall we say, 'interesting' interpretation of just what Blix meant.) And for exactly this reason. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of the people who thought the way I do on this subject did so precisely because of the how much weight they gave to unsupported 'expert testimony' vs actual physical proof.
Will you, maybe, in the future look at the physical evidence more closely? And give less weight to what people 'who should know' say? As we've all learned by now (I hope), it's appallingly easy for a determined clique of well-positioned insiders to manipulate the 'intelligence', such as it is, into a pre-determined shape. Not unlike laundering illegal gains into perfectly legal cash - the charming tactic of 'stove-piping' comes to mind.
I suspect that a lot of war supporters think the way you do though, about 'declaring victory' that it's a matter of staking out a claim and then defending it, and that you tend to personalize things when you perceive your claims are under 'attack'.
Needless to say, this is not a good model for deciding on a course of action.[1]
[1]Actually, I'm absolutely livid that this has now come to be seen as the norm in these types of discussions, and I tend to despise people who try to practice the sorts of tactics associated with 'declaring victory' on me.
Will you, maybe, in the future look at the physical evidence more closely? And give less weight to what people 'who should know' say?
Um, given that most of us don't have top-level security clearances (and I'd be shocked if you did either), looking at the "physical evidence" is normally impossible. What on earth makes you think that the CIA or NSA or any intelligence agency is routinely going to make public all of the physical intel that it might have collected on enemy regimes?
They'd have to be stark raving mad to do so. For example, if the CIA published all of its satellite imagery on the web for your browsing pleasure, guess what: enemy regimes would quickly be able to judge our satellite capabilities, and then adjust their own behavior accordingly. If the CIA published intel gathered by human informants, guess what: enemy regimes would quickly be able to figure out who the mole was, and have him killed.
Your suggestion that we all, as members of the public, are required to evaluate "physical intelligence" as to foreign policy matters is silly posturing.
Sigh. So if Kerry believed otherwise, that Saddam wasn't really a threat, why, he'd go out on the campaign trail and say so.
Because it's all about the truth and doing what's right, not calculations about how to win elections.
Right.
And that's why us 'obnoxious' types - nice of you to characterize us like that - tended to go with the physical evidence (at least, that's the reasoning of a lot of people I know; but then again, I'm an academic in the math department, and I tend to know scientist types, so maybe my circle of acquaintances are a little skewed.) This 'math is hard' whine about "I don't personally feel like I understand all of this tedious quibbling about the size of aluminum tubes and whatnot" is just that - a whine. The fact that the physical evidence didn't support the administrations claim isn't all that difficult to understand either.
And finally, I think you betray your mindset with the way you characterize the 'obnoxiously right anti-war types': nobody I knew who was skeptical can reasonably be portrayed - as you're trying to - as saying they didn't believe Saddam had WMD's. What they were was exactly that - skeptical. They said 'show me the money', not 'I don't think you have any money to put down'.
Further, they weren't saying they were automatically against going to war, either - again, I think you know this, and you're deliberately trying to make the opposition into something it wasn't. Most of us, well, me and people like me, at least, were saying that maybe we should go in and get evidence before so hastily committing to such a chancy and expensive course of action.
You know, like letting the inspectors go in and actually do their job. The job they said they would be done with in just a few more months.
Now, it strikes me that characterizing this position as being 'anti-war' is playing just a little fast and loose with definitions. But let me ask you: what was wrong about waiting an extra few months to be certain that there were (or weren't) WMD's?
What is your objection to not rushing in? To saying that the evidence seems sketchy, why don't we wait and see to make sure?
I'd really, honestly, like to know what your take on this is.
Thanks to the wonderful YouTube, it's harder for the hindsight brigade to totally rewrite history such that there was never anything that could have caused anyone to have rational concerns about Saddam's links to terrorism. Here's a 1999 ABC News report on attempts by Saddam to form an "alliance" with bin Laden, who had been seeking nuclear material: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uxVYN-5iY&eurl=
Yes, yes, we all know, you were a superhuman genius with a top-secret security clearance, and as soon as you saw that ABC News report back in 1999, you knew at the time that it was false or overstated. But why is a superhuman genius like you commenting anonymously here? Don't you have better things to do in your position at the CIA, like foretelling what's going to happen in Iran over the next 5 years? Or saving the world somehow?
And that's why us 'obnoxious' types - nice of you to characterize us like that - tended to go with the physical evidence (at least, that's the reasoning of a lot of people I know; but then again, I'm an academic in the math department, and I tend to know scientist types, so maybe my circle of acquaintances are a little skewed.)
I'm not characterizing you as obnoxious, although if the shoe fits . . . . I'm characterizing the average anti-war commenter on this blog as obnoxious, which is most certainly true.
And I've already told you why it's stupid to expect that the average citizen is ever going to have access to all of what you call "physical evidence," let alone be able to analyze physical intel correctly for themselves. (What is it, by the way, about being in the math department that would qualify you to interpret satellite imagery?)
Sigh. So if Kerry believed otherwise, that Saddam wasn't really a threat, why, he'd go out on the campaign trail and say so. Because it's all about the truth and doing what's right, not calculations about how to win elections. Right.
I think this is called shifting the goalposts. You originally professed ignorance of any pre-election claim that Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. I produced someone who made exactly such a claim: John Kerry. Your response is not to admit error, but to suggest that everyone should have assumed Kerry was lying? Hmm, ok.
Chuckle. You do know that when you post links like that, you better not be bluffing. _That_ is your 'evidence'. I think you need to have a better grip on what's evidence.
Further, I don't think you're serious about having a conversation here, you just want to 'win' again, as evidenced by this tripe:
Since I never said anything like that, it seems that you're the one whose doing all the posturing, trying like crazy to get your version into the record.
No, I said that whenever possible, evaluate the physical evidence, and that it takes precedence over what people say. And in this case, there was physical evidence put out there, evidence which, despite your earlier protestations, wasn't all that difficult to understand, and which conflicted with the story-line.
If you think that makes people into 'superhuman geniuses', may I suggest you enroll in a few science classes at your local community college, maybe learn this thing we like to call the scientific method.
Then you can be a super-genius too.
Oh, I'm guessing that you're outraged over what happened to Plame and her husband btw, you being so terribly considered with the human assets in intelligence gathering and all.
I didn't say Kerry's statement was actually "evidence" in and of itself. I said it was a "claim" that Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. The reason that I point to this is because YOU suggested that no one had made such a "claim." Voila, you are refuted, however much you wish to change the subject. (But yes, statements from prominent Democrats are always going to be seen as "evidence" in the minds of rational citizens who don't have the time or energy or obsessiveness to investigate all public policy issues for themselves. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, regardless of what you say.)
And since you're changing the goalposts in yet another way, let me remind you of what you said: that in the "FUTURE," people should look at "physical evidence." You can't actually disagree with me that most or all "physical evidence" re: enemy regimes is always going to be classified and top secret. So your suggestion that we're all obligated to consider such evidence in the "future" is silly and absurd.
I think this is called shifting the goalposts. You originally professed ignorance of any pre-election claim that Saddam was close to having nuclear weapons.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never held this position. I thought you were trying to justify another claim actually, which is why I gave the response I did.
In fact, if you've been following this at all, I was skeptical precisely _because_ of this claim. What little physical evidence there was just corroborate this particular story line.
The administration would have done better for their case if they had turned down the rhetoric a notch or too, although I suspect they were afraid it would lack punch; 'Saddam is engaged in a program to manufacture large amounts of mustard gas' just doesn't have the overtones of doom that 'Saddam will soon have the Bomb' does.
There it is again. And what an absurd notion it is, that I would say something like that. Do you have the post handy where you picked up this idea?
Oh, and I don't have any objection to evaluating the statements of various people as evidence. It's just that for me, those sorts of unsupported statements don't carry a lot of weight with me - for reasons I think I've made very clear - and that between a photograph and eyewitness testimony, I'll take the photograph every time.
I find people who would suggest otherwise to be, um, not terribly well grounded in reality.
"Oh, I'm guessing that you're outraged over what happened to Plame and her husband btw, you being so terribly considered with the human assets in intelligence gathering and all."
I don't know about John Doe, but I'm outraged at what Joe Wilson did to his wife, outing her like that. It should have been enough that a party hack got a job that he wasn't really qualified for. It was outrageous for him to then lie about his findings publicly in a way that made the public airing of his wife's role in getting him the job virtually inevitable.
When Joe Wilson went on one talk show after another, lying both about his findings and about who sent him to Niger, he clearly knew that reporters would ask the inevitable question - why would the Bush administration send this unqualified bozo? And he knew that the answer would lead straight to his wife's job, since she was the only reason that he was sent.
ScentofViolents --
I think you have me confused with someone else. I've never held this position. I thought you were trying to justify another claim actually, which is why I gave the response I did.
Let me repeat your words, which I already quoted once:
Clearly, you were denying that any Democrat had made anything "remotely resembling a claim" as to Saddam's nuclear capabilities. Then, I produced evidence that Kerry himself made exactly such a "claim."Just admit that your original assertion was wrong or uninformed, okay? There's no use in pretending that you never said it. It's not like you have the power to go back and edit your prior comments, so your words are still sitting right there.
in this case, there was physical evidence put out there, evidence which, despite your earlier protestations, wasn't all that difficult to understand, and which conflicted with the story-line. . . . If you think that makes people into 'superhuman geniuses', may I suggest you enroll in a few science classes at your local community college, maybe learn this thing we like to call the scientific method.
I didn't say that people would have to be "superhuman geniuses" to understand any physical evidence at all. In fact, I used that term in saying that the anti-war jerks around here are claiming to have been superhuman geniuses who always knew the exact truth -- at the time and without the benefit of hindsight -- of any information presented to them about foreign policy.
I say these folks are not geniuses. Instead, they're obviously guilty of hindsight bias (that's a recognized psychological phenomenon; look it up). What that means is that when they look back 6 years and tell us what they supposedly "knew" back in 2002, what they say now is inescapably biased by the knowledge gained in the intervening years. People always -- not just in the war context -- overestimate how prescient they were in the past when it turns out that their tentative predictions came true after all. Always.
By the way, you ignore this ABC News report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uxVYN-5iY&eurl= The point is not that the report is necessarily true (to this day, I wouldn't know unless I spent lots of time researching all the details). But it looked reasonable at the time, and it's just one of MANY pieces of "evidence" that rational people could have taken into account back in 2002 when trying to figure out how dangerous Saddam was. It's child's play to look back in hindsight and put on this lofty pose: "Oh, you're all just morons, and I knew back then what the real facts were." Yeah right.
Aha! John, you are - in your own words mind you - switching the goalposts. _Not_ cool. Here's what you originally said:
and:
John, if this is just a simple misunderstanding, just say you misspoke and we can move on. Btw, your words are - as you say - uneditable. So don't deny that this wasn't what you said, or that I am taking you out of context.
But you need to do this before I am convinced that this wasn't deliberate.
You also need to work on your comprehension skills - I certainly did _not_ deny that any Democrat had made that claim. I also pointed out that - quite clearly - that "That being said, if no proof was forthcoming for this claim that was supposedly made by the Democrats, I'd be just as skeptical."
Sheesh.
Do you have any evidence at all for this claim? What I see over and over again are people who are right who said it was not difficult to be right. I'm suggestion, per Megan's instructions, that one of the reasons we got it right so easily is that we set greater store by the actual physical evidence.
Why is this so hard for you to acknowledge?
Sigh. No one is saying that you're a moron. Remember the premise of this thread? It's up there, right at the top:
So if you genuinely want to learn why I got it right, rather than simply make apologetics for why you got it wrong, I suggest you listen: I have said, quite clearly, that it was the physical evidence that was presented that actually decided me. I would suggest that in the future, you would give greater weight than to mere testimonials, especially testimonials that in hindsight seem crafted to give plausible deniability.
Which brings us to your 'report' (which I've already talked about, btw, you must have missed it): there's no there, there. It's all 'government officials allege' and 'Bin Ladin does not deny' type of filler.
I look at things like that and instantly dismiss it as any sort of 'evidence', and very reasonably too, I think.
I really wish that the "reality-based community" would go review the full reports from Wilson and Hans Blix before citing them.
Wilson liked to go around saying that he found that Iraq had not bought yellowcake in Africa - but his full report shows that officials told him Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake once and been refused. That is, Bush's claim that Iraq tried to buy Uranium ore in Africa was accurate. Furthermore, if Wilson actually believes that after asking once and getting refused Saddam would just give up forever rather than trying to approach various people under the table, the main problem isn't with him, it's with the CIA officials that would send out a complete naif on a critical investigative mission.
Blix - who got into Iraq only because we were starting to build up an invasion force already - never said that all the WMD was accounted for and he could go home. He said that Saddam couldn't be manufacturing more while his team was running inspections (probably true WHILE WE HAD A WHOLE ARMY POISED ON THE IRAQI BORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE INSPECTORS GOT ACCESS), but also that much of the poison gas that records showed had existed was not yet accounted for, and he obviously was treating looking for them as a permanent job.
We now know why he wasn't finding those poison gas shells - Saddam's troops had hid them by mixing them a few shells at a time into armories full of conventional shells, without keeping any records. The US Army has found hundreds of them as it sorts through the captured Iraqi munitions. I doubt that Blix and his team ever physically went through a stack of explosive shells to see if there were any different ones at the bottom, and I think that given the size of his team, it would indeed have been a lifetime job if he had chosen to look for the missing WMD's this way.
This was yet another Iraqi violation violation of the treaty ending the first Gulf War, as was his gassing of the Kurds and swamp Arabs, and his interference with UN inspection teams through most of the Clinton administration, not to mention throwing them out of the country entirely when they got too insistent about seeing everything. So, SoV, which was your plan:
- Trust a mass murderer who had violated treaties whenever he could to behave this time, or
- Keep inspectors in the country backed by an army posted to Kuwait forever to ensure his good behavior, and that of his psychopathic sons after him?
Dang, I've missed a lot of fun arguing!
First let me enlighten Ann:
Joe Wilson didn't do anything to his wife. Her identity is now known to have been leaked by Richard Armitage, backed up by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. This is well-established fact. Libby is in jail for lying about it. Well, he would have been, except he has friends in high places.
Stinky flowers and John Doe are actually both right:
This is exactly right, both of you. John Doe is right that a reasonable person might take at face value that what "government sources" and "senior administration officials" said was true. SoV is right that there was a) evidence that contradicted their statements and b) why do people trust anonymous government sources anyway?
My answer to a) is that while the evidence was out there it still was not widely known or understood. It was just beginning to get wide airplay, starting to leak through the "WAR! WAR! WAR!" drumbeats; and I think that was a critical factor in the decision to go in mid-March rather than later. That and the fact that the UN weapons inspectors were on the verge of completing their work and reporting conclusively that they found no evidence of WMDs or WMD programs, which would have slammed the door on the whole operation. They had to go in before that happened. So instead Blix had to give a truncated report that they hadn't found anything so far, which then left the administration room to claim his report wasn't complete and therefore could be completely wrong.
On b) I think we as a nation were still inclined to trust anonymous government sources. In the past (in my experience) such anonymous government sources were usually mid- or low-level bureaucrats who were leaking information to the public that they felt it important for the public to know but was being withheld by their superiors for whatever reason. "Senior administration officials" were usually leaking information that the administration wanted to put out, and to be sure the expectation was that they would have an agenda for doing so; but the expectation also was that the media would vet all such leaks so the information could be considered trustworthy. We now know that the media was (and is) completely in the tank (in exchange for "access") and simply forwarded the information without bothering to check it. So I blame our compliant media as well as the administration for lying us into this mess.
This is another argument we keep hearing over and over again: "Saddam was in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire treaty! He was in violation of U.N. resolutions!" Yes, he was. He would have been in as much violation in April, 2003 or May, 2003, however; what was so critical about March, 2003, that we had to go in RIGHT THEN, we couldn't possibly wait any longer, not a single minute! Mushroom clouds! If the problem is that it would be too hot in May, why not go in the fall? Oh noes, mushroom clouds!
Just think. If we had waited longer, we might have been able to convince the French and Germans to go along with us. We could have developed firmer evidence that action was required. We could have pounded on the U.N. resolutions violations and gotten a firm commitment from the U.N. Security Council to take military action. We could have assembled a broad coaltion, maybe even reassembled the 1991 force of over 500,000 troops and thereby had enough force to occupy the country and pacify it- under U.N. auspices, not just a "coalition of the willing." All this could have been accomplished, if our cause was just and we had taken more time.
There had to be some compelling reason we had to go in in March and not a minute later. I think it was because the aluminum tubes story was breaking down, the U.N. weapons inspectors were getting close to conclusively reporting no joy, the Niger yellowcake story was breaking down, the "16 words" gaffe was about to come out, the Downing Street Memos were about to come out, and their whole casus belli was getting ready to fall apart. It was neatly done.
Megan,
I do not enjoy casting judgments like this, but I have to say that your life is worth less than an Iraqi's life.
it was really quite simple.. all one had to do was look at our historical underpinnings and internalize the facts of international law.
repeat after me: [1] "agressive war is a crime against humanity"
[2] "nations which have not attacked you and present no imminent threat to you are not to be attacked"
we knew these things, but allowed a few loud mouths to violate those simpe rules and laws.
wanna go for three ??
[3] torture is ALWAYS immoral and cannot be justfied by moral individuals.
so .. next time you're lost .. look to the lessons of the past .. to the laws of nations ..and follow your conscience..and the letter of the law.. be not ruled by your fears or stampeded by the shrill cowardice of others. war is a very very very last resort and should never be a matter of elective choice.
"Obviously, there are people who were right about the war for the right reasons, and we should examine what their thought process was--not merely the conclusions they came to, but how they got there."
SoV's quoting this reminds me - Megan, I wanted to thank you for saying this - even if you do backtrack a bit, in my view, later. It's also nice that you didn't increasingly hardline yourself in response to criticism, but were still able to make this statement.
That said, I do have to admit a lot of disappointment that some folks here - including, to a degree, you - are once again creating a caricatured Iraq war opponent to criticize. Now, like all good caricatures it does have a genuine - though grossly exaggerated - relation to reality (and some of your concerns are not unreasonable). And of course, some of the people commenting on blog posts about such a massively emotionally-loaded topic are rather less than polite, whether with more or less justification. But honestly, my impression of the many recent comments is that there actually weren't a lot of demands for utter debasement, or self-exile, or that those of us who didn't fall for an highly emotionally manipulative and clever - but ultimately somewhat obvious - scam should be given complete control of world affairs, or that we're super-geniuses and you lot drooling morons. Even if you insisted that, say, your head get shaven as a mark of shame, I couldn't do it. (At least without a footstool for a step up . . . ok, ok, that's unnecessary, and mostly a reflection of my rather slight stature).
Look, for example, at the Tim Noah quote that set this all off:
"Why should you waste your time, at this late date, ingesting the opinions of people who were wrong about Iraq? Wouldn't you benefit more from considering the views of people who were right? Five years after this terrible war began, it remains true that respectable mainstream discussion about its lessons is nearly exclusively confined to people who supported the war, even though that same mainstream acknowledges, for the most part, that the war was a mistake. That's true of Slate's symposium, and it was true of a similar symposium that appeared March 16 on the New York Times' op-ed pages. The people who opposed U.S. entry into the Iraq war, it would appear, are insufficiently "serious" to explain why they were right."
Now, the first sentence is a bit strong for me - Andrew Sullivan's post on the matter was quite interesting, for example, and yours was fine - but honestly, I don't think the quote's at all strident or unreasonable, given all that's happened, nor power-mad, etc.. As he said, "Five years after this terrible war began, it remains true that respectable mainstream discussion about its lessons is nearly exclusively confined to people who supported the war, even though that same mainstream acknowledges, for the most part, that the war was a mistake." That's really kind of odd, and I'm sure you can understanding why it might be disturbing to us on a personal level, but also (ideally to us-including-you) on a political and practical level.
And as I've commented over at Obsidian Wings, it seems to me unlikely that the editors at Slate and the NY Times spent time musing the greater education derived from failure, as demonstrated in fields like development economics (perhaps you have experience suggesting the contrary?). It seems to suggest some other possible dynamics.
Now, your call in the previous post for everyone to work together is very practical, even admirable (I'd say not entirely inconvenient either, but that's not quite fair - after all, you are maintaining a position that has everyone yelling at you). And it's true that the thing is so emotionally charged and value laden that - going rather loosely off Scott Atran's research on, say, Israeli/Palestinian negotiations - that any sort of moving forward probably would require important symbolic concessions. (of course, that's kinda what we're asking for, but hey, somebody has to be the grownup . . .
But the thing is, it's not entirely clear that just putting the past behind us to work together is the appropriate thing to do. This isn't just because former(/-ish) war supporters cause(d) a lot of (quite understandable) personal resentment and anger by their rhetoric, or that their errors resulted not in broken pieces of pasta but hundreds of thousands of broken and shattered lives. It's because of political and practical concerns about lessons learned, consequences, and what comes next.
It's interesting that folks like (afaik) Andrew Sullivan and John Cole don't get this sort of angry response from those of us who had it right from way back. Part of this is presumably that they seem to have clearly 'got it', in a hard to define way. Let me try to use - very loosely and expressionistically - the kind of relationship stuff you brought up in the last post, as a metaphor for not 'getting it' (in a mixed intellectual and emotional sense):
Person: [detailed and accurate assessment of bad situation] - and so you've really hurt me, and made me feel really unhappy.
Other person: [bored, singsongy voice voice] I'm sorry if what I did made you unhappy. It's a shame you get so upset about that kind of thing. Anyway, I'll make sure not to do it again. Ok, so we're all good now, right? Wanna [non-family appropriate]?
But that doesn't quite get at the political ramifications (well, it kinda does, but . . .)
Anyway, one more specific question, to return to the lessons of failure. You've earlier listed what you got wrong on the Iraq War - and let me stress again, I think that does have real value; the problem is with the wider situation, where [see Noah quote], and what that means. What I'm interested in now, thinking about all these lists, is why you (or Sullivan, or Cole, or etc.) got what you got about Iraq wrong. What are the underlying factors, what influenced these decisions and tendencies? While I'm not your biggest fan, you are fairly witty, clever, sensible enough to avoid entirely doctrinaire libertarianism, etc. - certainly not a great match to the picture of that foolish,, naively arrogant sucker which emerges from your list. Or take Sullivan. I don't embrace many of his ideological positions (or reflexes), but I do think that over time he's fit them into a coherent (and somewhat classic) framework that certainly has things of value to offer (at the least, as a balance). What led him to such a glaring (if temporary) abandonment of his conservative principles?
You've done some nifty bits looking at things from a cognitive-bias perspective. It would be interesting to see you apply it here (or am I foolishly overlooking existing posts on that?)
You claim to have learned but you haven't learned anything.
"Within the limits on foreign policy in a hegemonic power, these just aren't particularly useful, again, regardless of whether you are metaphysically correct.
...
On a deeper level, understanding the unconscious cognitive biases that lead smart and well meaning people to believe that things which will not work..."
You don't understand you own cognitive biases at all. The US is only a "hegemonic power" because people like yourself wish it to be. You are taking as an unquestionable given what is actually a large part of the problem. That the US should establish a benevolent hegemony is neoconservative orthodoxy.
You've started by immediately constraining the debate to a narrow and flawed range of your own choosing. This is exactly what Iraq War proponents did from the start. They narrowed the debate from "should we attack at all" to "how exactly should we attack?" You are repeating the exact same mistake while pretending you've grown wiser.
The question is not "how should we best kill people in the name of our grand hegemony" the question is much more fundamental: is a grand hegemony something we even want?
Why bother writing a "methodological argument about learning" when it's clear you aren't capable of learning? Repeating the same mistakes over and over again is not "learning". Get real.
Coupla points here; liberalrob, you're presuming some sort of symmetry with those comments when their really isn't any. It's one thing for 'liberals' or people who vote the Democratic ticket to be taken in by spin. They're putatively the groups who think that government can do good things, after all.
It's quite another for all the 'conservative' libertarian/Republican types to claim they were taken in. That's simply not credible. They are the ones who are on-message 24/7 that you can't trust the government to do anything right, that the government is not to be trusted, etc.
So these people are the _last_ ones to be able to claim that they just 'trusted anonymous officials'. That a 'news' program like the one John Doe is claiming is reasonable evidence for reasonable people, when in point of fact, there were no substantive facts in the entire piece. 'Bin Laden does not deny that al Qaeda is trying to acquire nuclear weapons'? Puh-leaze.
NO. That simply doesn't fly.
The other point I wish to make is one about plain talk: people generally get away with a lot less when you press them to stop being mealy-mouthed and say straight-up what they mean. 'National Interest'? It's a vague term that means whatever you want it to mean, and crafted so that if you question it, you sound unpatriotic. Otoh, if you just flat-out say (I'm not claiming this is true in the real world) "Hey, we want to set up bases to establish a strong military presence here, because we need to make sure we're the ones who control the oil in the region, and not China or Russia, or the Arabs," you're being succinct and straightforward, and people can judge your proposal on its merits.
Same thing with other terms that seem to get thrown about with a great frequency: 'mistakes were made', not 'I rode roughshod over everyone else to make sure that what I wanted got done, and I screwed up _badly_.'
So the other lesson I think the people who got it wrong can learn is that when people turn what should be straight-forward sentences and propositions into weasel-word-salad, you disbelieve them on principle, as a matter of course, without thinking about it further.
Oh, come off it! We had enough proof that Iraq was not stockpiling WMDs so as to allow the inspectors to do their jobs. Instead, Bush waged war, and the media cheered him on. Where in this debacle was there any opportunity to say "it won't work", let alone proceed in a logical, reasoned fashion?
This tripe column smacks of the mewling backpedaling our cheerleading media has chosen to take when faced with the realities of their lazy, sloppy pre-invasion reporting. The only ones who 'got it right' did their homework and employed actual investigative journalism when they dug into the false and ever-changing reasons for war with Iraq. McCardle does her readers a disservice with her lame excuses.
I'll point this out again, since the pro-war folks are running from it: for many of us 'against' the war, it was not 'Saddam does not have any WMD's, so we should not invade.' It was not even 'I am not convinced that the evidence indicates that Saddam has WMD's, and so we should not invade.'
No, for many of us it was: 'The evidence does not seem to indicate that Saddam has WMD's; otoh, he might, so we should let the inspection teams finish their sweep and make their (hopefully conclusive) report before deciding to invade.'
Since this option would not have cost us anything save a delay of a few months, even in the scenario where the evidence points very strongly to the existence of WMD's, and in fact could have saved us hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, I fail to see how the war proponents can say anything more than, "Hey, we _really_ messed up on that one, and we can't blame anyone but ourselves."
Of course, that's not what's happening, but I thought I would at least set the record straight.
One quick comment, but I hope to make more. Margalis asks "...the question is much more fundamental: is a grand hegemony something we even want?" I think he is quite correct that we have to include a discussion at this level, and very fundamental mental frames may need to change before we get to a more tolerable way forward. I think the answer to his question is probably "Yes, we want it" (taking the US polity as a whole as "we"). I also think that "No, we should not want it."
I believe the question is slightly mis-stated. A better question is "is there a better feasible alternative than us having a grand hegemony?" I fear the answer to that question is "No" for at least decades.
Did Al just say that the Iraq War wasn't a failure? Let's see: more deaths under US occupation that under Saddam. The U.S. is less safe because of this war per the National Intelligence Estimate. The dollar is worth nothing against the Euro, and a "conservative" president has managed to double the deficit partially as a result of sinking an asinine amount of money into policing a country. 4000+ american troops dead for a voluntary war. Creating a chaotic failed state that will soon be a theocracy mired in civil war from what was a secular and stable dicatorship. Creating a harbor for Al-Qaeda where one did not exist before. Need I go on? Iraq is to successful war as running your car into a tree is to success in stopping your car - it's only a success if delusional enough to have a ridiculous idea of what constitutes "success."
At the very start of this post, Megan says that she's is trying to talk about learning.
As part of that, I think it is worth pulling out a key discussion point that emerged in this thread. ScentOfViolets (SOV) says "I have said, quite clearly, that it was the physical evidence that was presented that actually decided me. I would suggest that in the future, you would give greater weight than to mere testimonials."
I think we can take this as a hypothesis for learning, to suspect that you overweight what other people say, and underweight actual physical evidence. That could be true, and could generalize very far beyond just political disagreements like this.
A question for SOV, did you mean to imply that you assumed what physical evidence presented would be the cherry-picked best, representative, or just that even if it was a pretty poor selection from an evidence standpoint that physical evidence was the best to go on?
Megan says this: "America gets a lot of things right, I think, precisely because it includes people who have gotten it badly wrong."
What the **** does that mean? That seems to me to be one of those cute little turns of phrase that seems to mean something, but which in fact is empty.
The universe of people who were either wrong or dishonest about the Iraq invasion and occupation is huge. We out here in the world watched with mounting anxiety as the case for war was made and we debated whether we were persuaded. Colin Powell, may his soul burn in hell for all eternity, told us it was on the level.
The warmongers in and out of the administration have not missed a beat. Our pipsqueak president still smirks at the dais and asserts that everything is jake. Idiots like Bill Kristol are given columns in the Times.
For Megan to pretend to examine what happened as an orderly exercize in epistemology is disingenuous. There was a group of liars aided and abetted by a group of grossly negligent accomplices who took our nation to an unjustified war. They had gained control of the government and by God we were going to attack Iraq. THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENED.
So if you genuinely want to learn why I got it right, rather than simply make apologetics for why you got it wrong, I suggest you listen: I have said, quite clearly, that it was the physical evidence that was presented that actually decided me.
What do you mean, if I "genuinely want to learn" why you "got it right"? What possible interest could I have in your thought processes, oh anonymous Internet commenter, particularly given that there's no evidence that you "got it right" other than your own unsigned and unattributed say-so?
ScentOfViolets is much more worth reading than Megan McArdle.
Americans might want to rethink going to war based on plausibility principles and politicized intelligence.
"Won't get fooled again", applied to the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Well here we are, and they are still fooling us. It just never ends. Yes it's good Saddam is gone, very good, incredibly outstanding in fact. However, what has replaced has been, and will most likely continue to be, virtual anarchy. Did it have to be this way? Perhaps, perhaps not. If the administration had put half as much thought and resources into postwar planning, as in the invasion itself, this thing would have had a chance. But it was blown, and the same idiots who defended this disaster from before square one, are still doing so. A pox on them and their houses. Iraqi's are suffering while they bleat on with their inane and shameful rhetoric. They should be cast into the hell of Basra.
"Won't get fooled again", applied to the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Well here we are, and they are still fooling us. It just never ends. Yes it's good Saddam is gone, very good, incredibly outstanding in fact. However, what has replaced has been, and will most likely continue to be, virtual anarchy. Did it have to be this way? Perhaps, perhaps not. If the administration had put half as much thought and resources into postwar planning, as in the invasion itself, this thing would have had a chance. But it was blown, and the same idiots who defended this disaster from before square one, are still doing so. A pox on them and their houses. Iraqi's are suffering while they bleat on with their inane and shameful rhetoric. They should be cast into the hell of Basra.