Once more into the breach, and then I will go back to more pleasant topics, like how we know how many people have died in Iraq (answer: we don't. But that's a long story.)
Obviously, I have a temper. I am slow to anger, but once roused, I as well as anyone know the delights of unloading one's accumulated venom on richly deserving targets. It is not my most attractive quality, and I do strive to control it, but there you are; one does not achieve perfection in this vale of tears. My only defense is that I almost never direct my verbal ire at anyone who has not put in hours of solid work being nasty, rude, and otherwise intolerable.
But I also understand that unloading, while making me feel better, does not usually advance my cause. On occasion, it does serve to put across the message "No, I'm really serious!" but more often, it ensures that whatever I wanted, I sure won't get it now.
There is a culture on the internet that prevails in certain areas of both the right and left blogosphere, of using insults and incredulity as a substitute for thought. Sadly, the assumption in both corners is that the reason the people they are provoking do not respond in kind is that they are simply not bright enough to muster the devastating weapons of personal rudeness and sarcasm to their side. It is thus useful and more than a little satisfying to occasionally demonstrate that no, the politer quarters aren't forgoing these things because we can't, but because they're both counterproductive, and not quite nice. All right, maybe more satisfying than useful. As I say, I have a temper. Also, if I do say so myself, I'm rather a dab hand at sarcasm, and it's a pity to have a skill one can't use.
Well, now that I've gone through the exercise and thoroughly expelled the remaining poison from my mandibular venom sacs, I do want to say something seriously to both sides: the anger is making things much, much, much, much worse.
I don't want to hear about who started it. Believe me, in 2003 many on both sides were acting like complete . . . well, I can't say what they were acting like, because this is a family blog. But you know what I would say, if I weren't a lady. Neither side's manners have improved noticeably since then. The very same people who were calling names and accusing those who disagreed with them of stupidity, poor judgement, immorality, and bad faith, are still saying exactly the same things. I'm now on the receiving end of all of it, so don't try to tell me that your side doesn't bear part of the blame.
War supporters: in November, it is extremely likely Barack Obama is going to win the presidency. If you continue to respond to the war's critics with "lalalalalalalala I can't HEAR you!", you are going to be completely shut out of the discussion come November. Demanding, incredulously, of me or anyone else, whether we seriously think it would have been better to leave a murderous dictator in place is not going to help. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 to 150,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded, each of whose heart beat and eyes blinked and minds dreamed as yours do right now staring at this computer screen. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars, we have reduced our strategic effectiveness both within and outside of the middle east, and the most likely outcome of an eventual withdrawal seems at present time to be a prolonged and bloody civil war. It is only a good idea to remove a murderous dictator if this results in, on net, fewer people being murdered.
Whether or not you agree with me on this, do me and the war's opponents the credit of assuming that yes, we have thought this through, and no, we are not secretly rooting for Osama bin Laden. I'm sure there are people like this, just as there are people on the pro-war side who are secretly enjoying the prospect of moderately large genocidal attacks on various Arab groups. Neither is the majority, or even a substantial component, of the movement. Yes, I know you're mad at the "I told you so's". But if you have something to add to the conversation on Iraq--and I think you do--you need to engage, not hunker down in your mountain bunker with all your canned goods and ammunition arrayed about you.
As one who was once numbered among you, may I request that before you sally into the next debate, youat least consider that you might be succumbing to the temptation to double down on a bad bet rather than write off your sunk costs. No, I'm not going to tell you what to think, or say that this is what you're doing. Just try to ask yourself honestly. You don't need to tell me, or anyone else, what you discover. Meanwhile, try to remember that whether or not they are correct, the people who opposed the war are not barking moonbats, but reasonable people who were understandably frustrated at watching helplessly while something they opposed killed a hundred thousand people or so. Think about some political argument you are losing, at great cost to the public good, and you can probably understand why they get a mite testy.
War opponents: the core of your movement is not a majority; your ranks have been swelled by people who regret the current chaos in Iraq, but will abandon you at the slightest shift, as indeed the polls show. You will not accomplish anything without a coalition, and that coalition will need to include many of the people you are currently insulting. You have spent too much time talking to each other, telling each other that you are right, everyone who disagreed with you is evil and stupid, and you therefore deserve to run things. Whether or not this is true, you do not have the numbers or the power to do so. If all you have to offer to the foreign policy establishment is an enraged demand that they shut up and go away while you take over, you cannot seriously be surprised when they close the door in your face and continue the meeting without you.
I am starting to hear disturbing echos of the neocons on the antiwar side-not in their goals, but in their analysis. The neocons watched various colossal fuck-ups that they had opposed, and concluded therefrom that they must be infallible. Since they were never actually in charge of much, there was no counterfactual to humble them. With each mistake their opponents made, they became more and more arrogant about their own abilities, and hello, Iraq.
Saying that something will fail is much easier than making something work. If you do get power, you will have to actually craft policy, not merely snipe from the sidelines. When that happens, a belief that judgments under uncertainty are not difficult, that hard answers are obvious, and that you are vastly morally and intellectually superior to people who disagree with you will not serve you well. It will make you overconfident, possibly disastrously so, and prevent you from recognizing your mistakes. It will also mean that when you need them, the hawks will do as little as possible to help you. Probably you think you can get along without the hawks. Well, the neocons thought they could get along without those pansies in the State Department.
With every "I told you so" and demand that they apologize to you, personally, for the sin of being wrong, you are hardening the hawks against the possibility of changing their minds. I know you may feel that you cannot be happy until they apologize, to admit that they were wrong, that they were stupid, that everything they ever believed about war was in error. They know it too. Indeed, after all the sniping, many people will refuse to say they are wrong because it would make you happy. They don't want to make you happy. Frankly, you haven't given them any reason to.
Both sides: I know that people called you names and made any number of unfounded statements about your morals and motives during the run-up to the war. You can vent your rage at this, or you can have some influence on what we do in Iraq going forward. You cannot have both. If you think that dead Iraqis are more important than "mental exercises", and think that you have the way to prevent more of same, then suck it up and sit down at the table. Politely.
Regardless of who was right about Iraq--obviously, I think I wasn't--we are left with the question of what to do now. Only we can't make any headway there, because the two groups are far too busy fighting an intensely personal battle over who was right. With every escalation of the rhetoric, we are less likely to arrive at a solution. Both sides seem to think that if they just hold out a little longer, and lob a few more verbal artillery shell, they can win. Maybe. Meanwhile, the Iraqis are losing.
The whole thing is a lot like those relationship-ending fights where the grievances about the argument have taken over the factual truth of the original debate. People are making increasingly strident demands that would, if directed at them, generate exactly the response they are getting from others: I will do anything rather than concede an inch. Unfortunately, whatever your fantasies might be, we cannot get a divorce, so we'd better find some way to de-escalate the hostilities.
Ah, once again, the "both sides were idiots" cop-out. How pathetic.
Done and Done.
Move along please, nothing to see here.
Okay, I was with you before (and saluted your last post), but I am now lost? Who exactly are you having a conversation with, again? Yourself? Huh? The conversation now has too many people in it for me to understand, clearly, whom you are addressing.
Weird.
Thanks for the brotherhood lecture, you big, silly elf!
Also (Anon from above), I don't see the Iraqis having any *agency* from your post above. It's all about the argument stateside and how people stateside *feel* about what has happened. This does no one any good. Is that what you are trying to say? Again, I repeat, Huh?
It isn't about you. Foreign policy isn't a game. There is a non-trivial possibility that bush or mccain will decide to double down and start a war with Iran. The lack of anti-war voices in the media was a problem at the start of the Iraq war and can be a problem in the future. Intemperate comments on the internet don't change this.
The neocons watched various colossal fuck-ups that they had opposed, and concluded therefrom that they must be infallible.
Huh? Which colossal fuck-ups were those? Did I miss all that neocon opposition to intervention in Vietnam? Did the neocons oppose our backing of the Shah? Did they think we should have boycotted the Olympics after the Russians invaded Afghanistan, then backed the mujaheddin? Oh, wait. Hm, support contras, check... Build SDI, check... Wait - Did they oppose GWH Bush's intervention in Somalia? Back the use of force in Bosnia? Support intervention in Rwanda? Oppose that disastrous war in Kosovo?
One data point to ponder: the Shia dominated government of Iraq is fighting the Shia militias. This is a huge step toward the US being able to draw down troops.
@ lemmy There is a non-trivial possibility that bush or mccain will decide to double down and start a war with Iran.
Not likely, the Iranian regime is fighting a revolution right now - see some of the video over at the Stategy Page - the cracks in the mullahs' control are widening. If the US provides aid and encouragement to the opposition, we'll not need to take action. I've heard several neocons advocating aid to the pro-democracy forces and cautioning against military action.
The lack of anti-war voices in the media was a problem at the start of the Iraq war and can be a problem in the future. Intemperate comments on the internet don't change this.
Was that not what she was saying?
I mean, seriously, I'm as anti-war as they come, but it does seem to me that on every substantive issue, Megan's on the right page. To whit:
the war was a bad idea;
those who thought otherwise were wrong;
we're now stuck with the tricky business of getting political weight around solutions to this mess;
nailing her to a cross along with all the other folk admitting they were wrong is a really stupid way of going about it.
Makes sense to me.
As one who was once numbered among you, may I request that before you sally into the next debate, youat least consider that you might be succumbing to the temptation to double down on a bad bet rather than write off your sunk costs.
I think you are close, but not correct about this. Bush did seem to be reasoning this way for a while, but now I think that what is going on is an unwillingness to accept failure. If you've read the Haldeman Diaries, you see unwillingness laid out in great, repetitive detail, as Kissinger tells Nixon for the umpteenth time that if he just increases the pressure a little more, Kissinger can make a deal.
If the US were to withdraw, leaving no residual force in place, this would be admitting failure. Both Obama and Clinton, and I believe most of the national security people in the Beltway, started the primary season planning on that 50,000 soldier level that Cheney talked about, about six weeks in.
The objective was a basing platform in a country friendly (at least ostensibly, as with Mubarak) to the US. This is, at the moment, Bush's proximate objective.
It is clear at this point that this objective cannot be attained. Admitting this will be very painful for those who were committed to this effort, and, as atrios puts it, as long as the US doesn't leave, the US hasn't lost. But this is not doubling down so much as it is engaging in Mr. Micawber foreign policy.
If you do get power, you will have to actually craft policy, not merely snipe from the sidelines. When that happens, a belief that judgments under uncertainty are not difficult, that hard answers are obvious, and that you are vastly morally and intellectually superior to people who disagree with you will not serve you well. It will make you overconfident, possibly disastrously so, and prevent you from recognizing your mistakes.
This is indeed what happened to the neocons. But because the general policy response of the people who opposed the invasion and occupation is to be slow to act, especially to be slow to act in matters of war, this putative overconfidence is very unlikely to lead to disaster. It has stood Canada in good stead lo these many years.
If there were some looming threat, if there was some danger that the US government could fall to a Taliban clone, then the overconfident people who believe that the use of force has proven, by and large, to be a bad thing. And that it is particularly bad to disregard national sovereignty in the pursuit of your foreign goals without careful consideration.
Policy positions that advocate, say, spending an extra year confirming whether or not Iran actually poses a threat is unlikely to end in catastrophe. Bomb bomb bombing Iran in response to a worst case, or even middling case, scenario is not in same category of error.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's hard to be overconfidently prudent, to move slowly before engaging in potentially irrevocable actions.
Calling out people for "using insults and incredulity as a substitute for thought"? This, coming from a person who earlier in the week actually typed the words "Protestant bastard" on her blog?
Now, that there is some quality analysis, ech. The civil war has spread to inter-organizational fighting among Shiite blocs -- peace is at hand!
You take it for granted that the Iraqi government is going to win. Ngo Dinh Diem started cracking down on the Binh Xuyen, the Hoa Hai and the Viet Minh in 1955. No doubt that too was a great step forward in the US's ability to withdraw its forces.
Good post. We hippies want an apology from liberal hawks for emotional reasons, and we do deserve one, but really what's important about adding "1. Many of those who opposed the war were making good, well-thought-out points, and I unjustly ignored them" to these "what I got wrong" lists accomplishes is some reassurance that former war proponents now really understand we're sometimes worth listening to. Until we see that we have to suspect you're planning to ignore us again next time. For the very reason you mention -- those at the table will be a diverse group -- we have to be able to trust you. Megan, I see some of this in your post, so I'm not really pinning this on you, but speaking more generally about former war supporters attitudes.
I have to respectfully disagree with much of this.
For one, I don't think that it is at all extremely likely that Barack Obama will be President. He will not play well outside the comfortable liberal enclaves and the African-American community that make up his base. Remember, the winner is decided by the Electoral College, not by party activists. I have difficult seeing Obama winning a single state that Kerry did not win in 2004, and there is a great chance he'll lose a state like Pennsylvania that would further harm his chance.
But that's a digression. The real issue is that you're arguing that 100,000 to 150,000 Iraqis have died because we invaded. For one, I don't think the actual casualties have been that high, and secondly that assumes that the results of leaving Saddam in place would have been much better.
There are two alternatives that could have realistically happened; either the Hussein regime would have stayed in place for years or the country would have collapsed. If the Hussein regime fell organically, then the sort of chaos we saw during the war would have had nothing to contain it. We were acting as a firebreak that prevented Iraqi from totally falling apart. Without the coalition presence, the collapse of Iraq would have looked like the Balkans at best, and at worst it would have been a bloody partisan free-for-all that could have sparked a wider regional war. The Iran-Iraq War killed at least 1,000,000. What would another war have done?
Even if the Hussein regime stayed intact, would that really have been any better. Assuming that fewer Iraqis would have died (which I don't believe is true based on Saddam's past behavior), does that mean that it would have been better to keep Saddam around to oppress everyone else?
The Duelfer Report is clear that sanctions were collapsing. Once that happened, Saddam had every intention of reconstitution WMDs.
Moreover, Libya would still have its nuclear program, and it's quite possible that we wouldn't have unraveled the A.Q. Khan network without knowing what we learned from the Libyan program. If we're going to argue about the effects of the war, we have to consider the positive collateral effects as well.
As controversial as this may be, I think the dreaded "neocons" were right, but that they were too rash in promising quick results. Iraq is democratizing, but on its own timescale not ours. The region has been transformed, and for the better. Democratization is on the table in the region as never before, and even the Saudis have made tentative steps towards political liberation. Democratization is a generational process, and while we're not getting what was promised now, there remains a good chance that the fall of the Hussein regime will have been a seminal moment in the region and an inflection point where the bloody status quo changed into something better.
You have to take the good with the bad, and as terrible as things have been in Iraq, the spillover effects have not been as terrible as some have predicted. Yes, every life lost in Iraq is a tragedy, but our soldiers tend to believe far more in this enterprise than we chattering classes do--and they bear the brunt of its costs.
Yes, the pro-war side massively underestimated what we'd face going in. But to be fair, what we're facing now is not the worst outcome by far. I personally thought the road through Baghdad would be like the Russian advance through Grozny and we'd face thousands of casualties taking the city.
The conflicts of the 21st Century will look a lot like Iraq does, and whether we like it or not we need to deal with those realities sooner, rather than later. I don't at all believe that this war has not been worth it, and looking at the bigger picture was probably the right thing to do, even if we took years to finally figure out how to fight these kind of battles. The lives we've lost in the past 5 years will save countless more in the next 95.
One hundred forty-three years after Appomattox, this country is still fighting over the causes of the Civil War. Thirty-three years after the last helicopters left the embassy roof in Saigon, we can't let go of Vietnam. We're going to be fighting over the divide caused by the decision to go to war in Iraq for a while, too.
The reason is because both sides are too emotionally involved in their sides to find the common ground, shake hands and grow. The analogy to a divorce is perfect. This country is the movie "War of the Roses," one Clinton Impeachment, followed by the Hanging Chads in Florida, followed by the next thing after another.
Pete, while I also think vindictiveness is a bad character trait and a stupid way to get anything accomplished, this discussion began as a response to something a bit different. The initial problem point was the irritation among anti-war thinkers that those in the chattering classes who supported the invasion appear to be fighting a rearguard action to defend their control of the national security discourse, now that they and almost everyone else have been forced to acknowledge the invasion was a mistake. From that point of view, the question of the balance of pro- versus anti-war voices in the mainstream press, and even of "just how big" an error it was to have backed the invasion, remains a legitimate area of debate.
What I find myself saying is "if only you had held your own opinion and the opinions of other war-supporters to these same standards back then."
That's what deeply saddens me, and that again gets back to my point about the personality conflicts at hand here. If you had held war supporters to a similar standard as you hold us to now, you probably would have made a better decision. I don't think there's any question that, for whatever reasons, the anti-war side continues to be met with less credulity than the pro-war side. I don't begrudge you any anger or frustration; extend to me the same courtesy. I'm also angry, angry that when we're right, we're lectured about the need to build bridges and have an effective dialogue and to remember to be humble... but those lessons would have also been immensely valuable back in 2003. And I do think that that's a product of personality, not politics, of an inherent desire to bash the anti-war side in any situation.
You said that we need to privilege process over people. And that sounds good to me. But I wish you had felt the same way before this war.
Megan,
I sympathize. I had the same opinions and now have the same regrets.
There are 2 types of war opponents in my view: those that opposed after thinking about it, and those that always oppose any war no matter what. To the former, I apologize for any rude words my arguments may have included and dismissals of your points of view; I admit to being wrong and admire you foresightedness. To the latter, well, a broken clock is correct twice a day now, isn't it?
I echo Freddie. Speaking from an anti-Iraq War perspective, I think you overlook a reason for this frustration, particularly when you ask people to “suck it up and sit down at the table.”
A lot of people who opposed this war don’t really see anyone from their side being seriously asked to sit down at the table, at least in media discourse. Instead, they’re treated to countless self-aggrandizing “How I got the war wrong” pieces, or more of the same talking heads they watched 5 years ago promoting the war. It really can feel like the same old crowd and their mindset is in control, and that no different voices are really being asked what the next step should be.
a broken clock is correct twice a day now, isn't it?
Only if it's an analog, 12 hour, clock. ;)
Megan:
About the war, I think you are wrong. However, it is too early to know for sure who is right. I still enjoy reading your posts because about things economic, I think that you see things correctly. Also, write as though you are reasonable and nice person. Keep up the good work and don't let the -------(no particular word) get you down. Paul
I'm rather a dab hand at sarcasm
A dab hand? Is that a British-ism?
Brooksfoe,
Fair enough, but I think that this post in partiuclar did address that. Would I have liked to see a more direct admission that after 9/11 serious thought on foreign policy was hi-jacked by rabid idealogues? Obviously. More or her talents for ridicule directed at those same folks? That'd be delightful.
But it's not something I want to die in a ditch over.
Maybe I'm just reading what I want into Megan's post, but I'm taking it as read that she's only defending the class of commentator who now recognises that 2003 was a moment of extreme hubris. The real hard-core of lunatics are out there saying that either it's about to be proven a success success, or that it was a great idea that was poorly executed. So long as we can cut away that deadwood, I call it a win.
Also, I think she's on the money when she says that the big thing to change the debate would be a Democrat (particularly Obama) getting into the White House. If sane issues are on the foreign policy agenda, people who can discuss them sensibly should find their stock rising naturally.
Jay -- good post. I think most war supporters & opposers have a common goal of peace in the long-term & minimization of suffering. The question resolves around what means will best achieve the desired ends.
All analogies are imperfect, but imagine there was a home where the parents were in the process of torturing their children to death. However -- it was discovered that armed intervention would result in the triggering of a bomb in an unnamed neighborhood. Should the cops, in this case, take a passive stance because the net effect of intervening would be more deaths? Or is there a principle involved where evil must be fought against & destroyed, even if that very evil is able to unleash more damage in the process of its eradication?
There are important parallels to the above analogy and Iraq -- and Darfur, and many other "ugly" areas of the world. With its strength and power, the Western world could do much to close the yawning gulf between Western freedoms and the unspeakable horrors experienced commonly in so many regimes. What is lacking is resolve. IF there were united front amongst the Western powers in Iraq & a steely resolve, the result would be positive. And once success would be tasted, the next regime could be targeted (Sudan??). After a few examples, tyrants would start curtailing the abuses.
But as it stands, the western preference is to maintain non-intervention in respect of sovereign states. So stories of government-sponsored militia who conduct widespread rape & murder will likely be with us for many years to come. Sure, we'll avoid death in the long-term, but the long-term hope for change in much of the world will remain bleak.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah ...
Just accept the fact that your ilk gets huge adrenalin rush in brutally murdering the brown people who are sitting on OUR oil and move on.
Do you honestly believe in the stuff that you write? or do you have to activaly hypnotise yourself to produce this kind of balderdash?
I'm on the left side of the political spectrum, but I have to say that my fellow liberals did a really lousy job in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. An unbelievable number of commentators saw a better life ahead for southeast Asia because of the Communist victory, and then fell silent as Vietnamese boat people poured out by the hundreds of thousands and Cambodians died by the millions. By comparison, Iraq hawks like Megan and Andrew Sullivan don't look that bad. They made a bad call, in part because of excessive faith in our morally obtuse president, and they're now apologizing. That's enough for me. Groveling isn't necessary.
The debate on the war is just the most discouraging point of our broad national dialogue. But the discourteous and dissonant tones displayed in that corner are common to our general political discourse, I think. Too bad that emotional outbursts take the place of considered analysis and thought in all areas of politics. It's not likely to help us make better decisions, now is it? So, while often disagreeing with Megan, I like her thoughtful approach to things, and I applaud her for insisting on comity while not discouraging debate.
On the war, though, a funny thing happened on the way to the Green Zone. It's this: for the substance of US engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran, it will not matter much who wins in November. That's right: the nasty political fighting at home is really for nothing. For war opponents, the reason is that Obama/Clinton will be restrained by realistic advisors regarding how fast they can withdraw -- and both have already hinted at that. So the war's opponents' dreams of immediate withdrawal are hallucinatory. That's just a fact. For war supporters, the reality is equally discouraging. The reason is that the Army and the Marine Corps will not be able to sustain the deployment tempo much longer. Even if McCain were to insist on a continued surge, it can't happen. I don't think we can sustain even 100K in Iraq for much longer. The much predicted breakdown of the sustainability of our ground troops is coming, much like the long predicted bursting of the housing bubble finally came last year. I repeat: the war effort cannot be sustained, and McCain, if he wins, will have to draw down.
I'm convinced that the implication is what I said: for the pace of US withdrawal in Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn't matter much who wins in November.
And it won't matter for Iran either. We're not in good enough shape to take on another military adventure when we can't sustain the one we're in now.
So, let the shouting stop. You're screaming about two policies that, in reality, you can hardly fit a razor blade between.
Jon B wrote: Just accept the fact that your ilk gets huge adrenalin rush in brutally murdering the brown people who are sitting on OUR oil and move on.
Just accept the fact that you and your ilk don't really give a damn about athletes tortured by Uday Hussein or the parents who watched their children be raped & murdered in Darfur.
Actually, I don't mean that, but please drop the rhetoric. It doesn't help.
There is no gurantee of future success but past success is as good as you get. CEOs get to be CEOs because they have a history of performance. People are paid lots of money for their judgment and decision making because, in the past, they made good decisions. This is fine. Markets are a powerful thing, if we want to be right about things we have more to win from the winners than the losers.
Re: "I'm now on the receiving end of all of it"
You libertarian, you.
Great post.
But then I'm not American so (I'm told, over and over again) have no standing and no right to comment.
Re: "I'm now on the receiving end of all of it"
You libertarian, you.
Great post.
But then I'm not American so (I'm told, over and over again) have no standing and no right to comment.
I think it's time to disband our military a la Costa Rica and let some other nation become the de facto world cop. I vote Canada.
One other point deserves to be aired in this discussion. War opponents here have all been at pains to point out that they are not simply pacifists who oppose the use of force tout court, that they supported the war in Afghanistan, and hence the "stopped clock" refrains are nonsense.
This has the side effect of giving the actual pacifist argument against the invasion of Iraq undeservedly short shrift. There are a series of perfectly legitimate cases to be made against war that begin to the peacenik side of anything that would ever get said on an American TV news show, and end up clear over in Christian pacifist territory. The argument that the US should never use its military without UN approval, and that the Iraq war should not have been launched because it was illegal, is a perfectly legitimate argument. Moving leftwards, the argument that the US has no real security needs outside its own borders and no call to deploy its forces abroad is a legitimate argument. And the argument that war itself is fundamentally evil, and that no national policy goals can justify the deliberately killing of human beings, is a legitimate argument.
I don't share these views -- I supported Gulf War I, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. But they are views that are just as serious and legitimate as the views of many advocates of war against Iraq and Iran who clearly just think that war is a great policy tool, and fun and honorable to boot. Following a Ghandian line on Iraq may be reflexively dismissed as naive, but the fact is it would have been better than the policy we actually pursued. If the neocon perspective still deserves to be accorded serious treatment, then we ought to be giving equal time to those terrible, anti-American stopped clocks who tell us killing people is just wrong.
Very nicely put, Jay.
One of my problems with the anti-Iraq war side is the general lack of viable alternatives. Leaving Saddam in power without sanctions wasn't acceptable as he'd just start up his WMD programs and with help from Syria and/or North Korea, he'd probably have nuclear weapons by now. Leaving the sanctions and no-fly zones in place and continuing the "inspections" wasn't accomplishing anything but enriching a bunch of UN kleptocrats and starving the people of Iraq.
No matter how loudly the anti-Iraq war side shouts it, it will never be true that Saddam did not support terrorists and did not deal with Al Qaeda. He wasn't involved in 9/11, but he was indirectly supporting terrorists at a minimum.
And a lot of anti-Iraq war folks are like Jon B and show a complete lack of higher cognitave functions. The Kos-kiddies and Code Pink and Che-worshippers all out protesting the war with their huge puppets and Marxist propaganda make taking the anti-war side seriously difficult.
It's hard to sit down at the table and talk rationally with people who want to pull our troops out of Iraq and who honestly believe that Iran and Hamas will be amenable to diplomatic solutions and can be persuaded to work for peace and stability in the region.
Is it time for a hug yet? Are we at a "Superbad" moment, where we get into our sleeping bags, spoon, and say, "No really... I love YOU!".
Maybe instead of apologies and rehashing the past, the greater discussion is what ideas would seem reasonable going forward.
That is, what troops should remain if any? Should we withdraw to Kurdish areas and make other areas demand our presence if they want us? How long should troops remain and should we leave a base? Would Hillary (with lawyer background) pay closer attention to detail in Iraq than Obama or McCain? Does McCain, given his general independence and war prisoner backgroundhave any greater insight into future policy? Does the efficiency of the Obama campaign reflect how the Iraq situation might be handled?
Under what conditions is it okay to remove all troops? Under what conditions is it okay to send them back in if chaos develops? Does the flowering of more western methods (particularly financially) in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Kuwait have to do with our presence in the Mid East? Does the Saudi plan to make "open cities" which allow for greater freedom a reflection of our influence? Do we have the correct set of allies in Europe and Middle East?
Should our policies shift away from Middle Eastern energy sources, and can the type of crude we get there be replicated by Russia, Mexico or other regions?
In what situations should we be willing to fight war? Under what calculus is the cost of war too great (given the comparatively low human cost of this war)? Do we take the troops out of Iraq, let them rest, and largely redeplopy them to Afghanistan (that country being the place that liberals have said we should be focused on)? Or, do we invade North Korea or Iran (as liberals in the past have used those countries as rhetorical mechanisms to suggest the choice of Iraq as being the least important place)?
If we are not talking about those things, we at least need to have our three candidates giving good amplification into their broader visions.
Megan - thank you. Good article that covered both sides.
BTW, InTrade is also predicting a drop in troops. For dems, the numbers are 85k troops and for non-dems (presumably McCain) the numbers are 66.4k troops. I find it a little odd the prediction markets have the dems keeping more troops in Iraq than the non-dems, but maybe there is something I'm not seeing...
Re: Remember, the winner is decided by the Electoral College, not by party activists. I have difficult seeing Obama winning a single state that Kerry did not win in 2004
This election is going to be a referendum not on Obama but on George Bush. McCain could make it something else, but so far seems unable or unwilling to do so. If he continues to embrace Bush's policies down to doting Bush's t's and crossing his i's, I can easily see Obama winning the presidency. And even if McCain does change his song and dance, I suspect states like Ohio, with its collapsing economy (and large Black population) will probably go Democrat this year.
Re: Even if the Hussein regime stayed intact, would that really have been any better.
Saddam Hussein was not America's problem. He was a problem for his neighbors, principally, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel (and perhaps Syria). We should hve left them to deal with him. Our problem after 9-11 was Al Qaida, and we should have followed the same approach Jefferson followed with the Barbary Pirates: gone after them with a vengence until they and their state patrons learned the necessary lesson, that to atack America and Americans is the road to ruin. We should no more have embarked on the quixoic quest to reform the Middle East and recreate it in our image than Jefferson should have attached the Ottoman Empire in the name of Democracy and human rights.
Finn is asking the relevant question: what do we do now?
As one who thought the invasion of Iraq was folly and hubris, I don't see quick withdrawl as a legitimate option (short of the Iraqis telling us they want us out). What do others think?
Megan,
I'm a very long time reader. You were one of my first blogs when you were working around the holes that were the World Trade Towers.
I also respectively disagree.
Even in total hindsight, invading Iraq was a good idea. Even if I knew we would be right here at this time. The thoughtful anti-Iraq war Dems (as opposed to the loony anti-war left who are just insane) were and are still wrong.
I agree with what Jay posted up thread, but will make one point about a comment you made. To quote:
"It is only a good idea to remove a murderous dictator if this results in, on net, fewer people being murdered."
This basically sets the value of freedom at zero.
That there is no value to no longer living under a tyranny with no hope of ever being free. That the lives of those who live in North Korea are the same as those in the South. Under your equation, we should not have fought in Korea, nor liberated Kuwait. Nor for that matter fought the US Civil War or revolted from England in 1776. All these actions resulted in many more lives lost than if we continued to let tyranny triumph.
I thought America and the western liberal democracies would make a stand after 9/11. I thought the liberal left who always complain about our support of dictators (and still do) would be on board. Liberating 60 million people from two of the worst dictatorships on the planet is reduced to a cost benefit relationship on how many people have died? Whether or not 80,000 died (good, less than Saddam's estimated tally) vs. 150,000 died (bad, more than Saddam's estimated tally)?
Is that what it’s come down to?
How long before the calls to abandon Afghanistan?
One, at least, of the underlying problems here is that we end up in these arguments about axioms. Cf, this comment:
the war was a bad idea;
those who thought otherwise were wrong;
we're now stuck with the tricky business of getting political weight around solutions to this mess;
This is taken as axiomatic by a lot of the anti-war side --- a misnomer in itself, as there isn't anyone involved who is actually "pro-war", just people who see war as being less bad than other alternatives --- but, when challenged, they can't actually justify it based on anything but their axiomatic assumptions.
Some of us don't share those assumptions. First, that the war was a bad idea means that you think not having it was a better idea. If so, you need to justify why leaving an actively hostile state, actively engaged in war fighting against the US, and holding a substantial part of our military forces engaged in a siege and embargo when we clearly learned on 9/11 that there were other forces who had sufficiently developed their capabilities to attack the US both overseas an at home, was a good idea.
The second point follows immediately from the first: if fighting the war was wrong, then not fighting the war must have been a good idea. Justify this, and be prepared for the justification to be challenged.
Often, the justification for this is that the war has been a "disaster" or "debacle", but as I've said down thread --- and haven't seen usefully refuted, or even contended with, although I've been busy with the day job and could have missed something --- the very assertion that this war, as a war, has been a disaster seems to be to be either historically ignorant or monumentally disingenuous.
So, if you're going to insist on the "war was a disaster" justification, you need to explain how it is that a war which:
- removed two hostile governments in only a few weeks of major combat
- replaced them with democratic and popularly elected governments, albeit imperfect ones, where such a thing hadn't been seen before, and did so in only five years
- doing so with only 4000 US fatalities and something in the order of only100,000 fatalities, including many thousands killed not by US or allied combat action but by war-criminals who thought killing their "own" people was a way to get political power in the US
- and did so with only an investment of one or so percent of GDP
... constitutes a "disaster".
The third point I'll grant follows from the other two, but without making the case it's hard to take the third point real seriously. It would seem to me the obvious political solution to the whole mess is "We win. They lose."
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
--Monty Python
This Iraq War 5 year retrospective debate going on in the blogosphere seems like so much Oxford Union BS. You argue a position because that's the lot you drew, and the dispute now is about nothing more than how to score the debate. Apparently, the people who drew the anti-war lot are pissed off that the pro side won't admit their defeat abjectly enough. (Exhibit A is Brad DeLong's infantile "boy is Megan stupid" rant. More generally, Andrew Sullivan's various "awards" fit into this style of tiresome Ivy League one-upmanship. Why can't they save this crap for the alumni magazine?) How many Iraqi civilians died in the war? 125k? 350k? Who knows. They're not real people anyway, they're just a polemical device conjured up by the stat hos at The Lancet.
Don't believe me? Well, remember how before the war the anti sanction people were retailing the "500k to 1000k children have died from starvation" meme? They weren't real either, just a polemical device in a different debate. That's why in the present debate the pro war people can’t go to the moral redemption window and exchange averted starvations for civilian war dead. Sorry, it's against Union rules to mix stage props from different debates.
(re-posting from the tail of one of the other threads...)
So what should be done in Afghanistan? AIUI, Afghanistan is the war that even (most of) the anti-Iraq war folks supported. It presents all the same issues that Iraq does (we've bombed and occupied the country, we're intervening in a civil war, there are rival ethnic and tribal groups, there's an active insurgency, etc.) plus a few additional strategic challenges (it's landlocked - a logistical nightmare, it has no meaningful natural resources, it's terrain is exceedingly insurgent-friendly, Afghanis are generally less educated and less secular). What is the reasoning that says Iraq is unwinnable and our troops should be withdrawn, but Afghanistan is worth persisting?
Let me be clear, I'm not arguing about the wisdom of invading Iraq initially. While I supported the war and I still think it was a defensible position given what wasn't known at the time (lack of WMDs, lack of post-war planning, state of Iraqi infrastructure, lack of even 18th century Western values by the Iraqi polity), at this point in time I concede that invading Iraq was not the best decision. But even if it was a mistake to have started the war, that doesn't make withdrawal the best option now.
Certainly by the standards set by the Bush Administration (reconstruction will pay for itself; weeks, perhaps months, certainly not years, etc.), Iraq has been a dismal failure. By historical standards however, it's not so bad.(*)
But, as I admit to being wrong about the wisdom of the initial invasion, I may be wrong about this as well. Can someone paint the picture for me how US and Iraqi interests would be best served by a rapid US withdrawal from Iraq at this point in time?
----
(*) I assert that the US and the South Koreans are better of for the US having fought the Korean War, but this was a hard argument to make in, say, 1955. Was the Korean War a mistake then, after ~50,000 US troops had died and all that was achieved was a partition? Is so, when did it stop becoming a mistake? If not, why was it not, and how sure can anyone be that Iraq can't travel a similar path?
One additional thought, if you are confident that Iraq (and does this extend to the Middle East and perhaps even Islamic people generally?) simply can't transition into liberal democratic republics, doesn't that strongly imply that we ought to disengage to the greatest extent practical (which isn't much until there's a replacement for oil) and inflict massive destruction in response to any future provocations? Make a desert and call it peace? If for whatever reason, conquer, occupy and gradually stand down leaving a democratic ally can't work, what other options are there?
One minute I think I'm reading a family blog written by a lady.
The next minute, it's all about the fuck ups.
Megan: As a longtime reader and rare poster let me say that I appreciate all of your efforts here and understand your anger. No need to explain.
I would also add that you seem to be far more generous than Brad Delong. I have learned the hard way today that despite his rare intelligence he will stoop to deleting comments even if they lack ad hominem attacks, juvenile name calling or bad language.
Thanks again for being a bigger person than most on the web ... and I mean that metaphorically.
Megan: As a longtime reader and rare poster let me say that I appreciate all of your efforts here and understand your anger. No need to explain.
I would also add that you seem to be far more generous than Brad Delong. I have learned the hard way today that despite his rare intelligence he will stoop to deleting comments even if they lack ad hominem attacks, juvenile name calling or bad language.
Thanks again for being a bigger person than most on the web ... and I mean that metaphorically.
Megan: As a longtime reader and rare poster let me say that I appreciate all of your efforts here and understand your anger. No need to explain.
I would also add that you seem to be far more generous than Brad Delong. I have learned the hard way today that despite his rare intelligence he will stoop to deleting comments even if they lack ad hominem attacks, juvenile name calling or bad language.
Thanks again for being a bigger person than most on the web ... and I mean that metaphorically.
SG,
"If for whatever reason, conquer, occupy and gradually stand down leaving a democratic ally can't work, what other options are there?"
If we can't turn a conquered Islamic country wether Iraq or Afghanistan into a Japan, Germany, or South Korea after we conquer it, then what are our options?
I have yet to have any thoughtful response to that question with respect to Iraq or Afghanistan. Mostly becuase the logical response, both inside and outside the US is unthinkable by them.
And if it is possible, then why not Iraq?
Islam will change
Hmmm. Am I banned now? OK. Truth hurts, eh, Megan?
To repeat: you ain't no lady.
You're not banned, RMc; you either had a technical glitch or got caught in the spam filter. But I need to know when you left the comment, because we're under attack and I've gotten more than 1,000 spams today.
> War supporters: in November, it is extremely likely Barack Obama is going to win the presidency. If you continue to respond to the war's critics with "lalalalalalalala I can't HEAR you!", you are going to be completely shut out of the discussion come November.
Firstly, "lalalalalalalala I can't HEAR you!" is a gross mischaracterization of nearly every person who's supported the war. Was this supposed to be a post-anger post or just disguised better?
Secondly, what on earth makes you think that if Obama wins, war supporters will not be shut out if only we (do unnamed magical thing)? And if you have no satisfactory answer to this question, isn't that statement of yours a mere dressed up version of "shut up because now YOU are going to be taking orders from US"?
> Somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 to 150,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded...
And a significant number of those were pointing guns at American soldiers when they died. And a decent amount of THOSE weren't Iraqis at all, but imported foreign fighters. And of course you include truckloads of their victims in there too.
You grossly forfeit the honesty argument when you disingenuously trot out a "each of whose heart beat and eyes blinked and minds dreamed as yours do right now staring at this computer screen." line for people whose "minds dreamed" of killing infidels or those whose "eyes blinked" and "hearts beated" as they sought out Iraqi citizens to murder so that people like YOU could use their corpses for your political purposes.
Given this, you aren't owed civility. Period.
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 125,000 to 150,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded[...] It is only a good idea to remove a murderous dictator if this results in, on net, fewer people being murdered.
I do agree with most of your post, but some of us out here recall we were told 5,000 Iraqis under the age of 5 were dying per month due to sanctions. Well, 5K/month x 60months is indeed greater than 150,000.
You have to take the good with the bad, and as terrible as things have been in Iraq, the spillover effects have not been as terrible as some have predicted.
That's easy to say from a distance of over 6,000 miles. , from Charlie Rose's television show on the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion, says something different.
Brooksfoe, your "One other point deserves to be aired" comment is one of the best I've ever seen since I started reading blogs, and writing my own. It's very rare to find someone who can find legitimacy in both pacifist and war-supporting positions.
Whoa. I don't know how that snippet got excised from my post. Very weird. The sentence should read (and did, when I sent it), "This video, from Charlie Rose's..." The link works.
in November, it is extremely likely Barack Obama is going to win the presidency. If you continue to respond to the war's critics with "lalalalalalalala I can't HEAR you!", you are going to be completely shut out of the discussion come November.
I find it unlikely (at this point) that Obama will win the Presidency. But even if I thought he was guaranteed to win, I don't think there's any chance I or other war supporters would be listened to on Iraq. Obama's given zero ground on the war, and the only debate the Congressional Democrats are interested in is the debate between "retreat immediately" and "retreat almost immediately". There is absolutely no support for staying there and finishing the job of stabilizing Iraq. So what's there to talk about? If Obama wins, we're screwed so far as the war is concerned; the exact position we get screwed in doesn't much interest me.
Just read Brad DeLong, and while his response is intemperate, the one he cites from Obsidian Wings is really quite good: "Decisions reveal things about those who make them. People who get them right are, on average, more likely to have wisdom and judgment and insight than those who get them wrong. This means that they are both more likely to be worth talking to in general, and more likely to profit from any mistakes they make, than people who get them wrong." The comparison drawn is between George Kennan and Jonah Goldberg, which makes the point rather nicely.
Megan,
Your central sentiment - that we should learn to disagree without being disagreeable - bears frequent repeating. Also, let me gently second the motion that your mostly family blog would be improved by making the "mostly" qualifier unnecessary.
Two key decisions made early probably had the most to do with how the last 5 years have gone: the decision to disband the Iraqi army, having already decided to invade without enough forces to occupy the country. Once Saddam's government was vanquished, we were morally obligated to monopolize armed force. Had we taken Gen. Shinseki's advice on troop levels or not made the disastrous decision to disband the Iraqi army, our and the Iraqis' suffering would almost certainly have been much less.
We'll never know whether the decision to invade per se was bad or good, given the catastrophic consequences of these related decisions.
Ken
dear megan:
thanks for a thoughtful post. today, all politics
is personal: the other person doesn't just disagree with you, they must be evil as well.