I’ve been pretty coy about what my real opinion of the war in Iraq has been. But when I read the wonderful post, “ The US, Democratization, and Grand Strategy” on The Duck of Minerva (which I linked to earlier), it characterized my position so beautifully and succinctly that I felt I really needed to come out in the open if only for one brief, shining moment.
Here’s the part of the post that really impressed me:
First, removing Hussein from power allowed the US to begin shifting troops out of Saudi Arabia–this was a central call to arms for many terrorists associated with Al Queda, and while the US will never admit it (because it can’t), this move facilitated the removal of one major point of political friction.
Second, Iraq was incredibly weak militarily. A decade of UN sanctions as well as the enforcement of no-fly zones made the invasion and occupation of Iraq relatively simple compared to what similar operations elsewhere would have been (granted, extended occupation has been incredibly difficult and it appears the administration completely underestimated this fact, but I digress…).
Third, the administration needed a “demonstration effect” for their new policy–an example that would demonstrate a) the US was capable and willing to execute regime change if necessary and b) an image of Middle Eastern citizens from one of the most despotic states in the region freely participating in politics which would hopefully encouraged the public in other states as well as freighten tryannical leaders, all leading to one giant snowball of democratization in the region–similar to Eastern Europe in the late 80’s early 90’s (whether we are witnessing a “fourth wave” in the region which is the result of the war in Iraq is hotly contested. See here, here, and here).
My position on the war in Iraq appears to be something of a rarity. The only conditions under which I could support the war in Iraq were strategic. Not because of WMD’s (containment was sufficient); not because Saddam was a monster (there are lots of monsters—in the total scheme of things the Chinese are much, much worse); not because he supported terrorists (so do the French); not to establish liberal democracy in the Middle East (desireable but perhaps impossible). And so on. But as a means towards the ends of removing troops from Saudi Arabia and encircling Iran (either Syria or Iran to be the next target) it can’t be beat. But to do this Mr. Bush had to enlist the support of the American people. He didn’t. And we had to be prepared to subdue the Iraqi populace as well as remove the government. We weren’t.
And that’s why I opposed the war. In my opinion the war in Iraq has gone much better than we had any reason to expect. The levels of casualties we’re taking are tragic but have little tactical or strategic significance.
After the actual invasion I held my peace and, largely influenced by email correspondence with Steven Den Beste, I determined that the consequences of actual failure of our actions in Iraq would be too horrible for the Iraqi people, the United States, and the world generally. So I believe that we need to do whatever it is that’s required to succeed (praktike has gently mocked me for this position).
You’re correct in that none of those reasons, taken individually, justified removing Saddam. But taken all together, combined with the fact that we could, did do so, in my opinion. It was a perfect storm.
The low level of casualties we are taking have tremendous consequences. First, while it is proving difficult, especially in light of negative publicity, a volunteer force is conducting these operations. Second, potential enemies see this happening. Third, it does make follow on operatins feasible from a purely domestic perspective.
I don’t disagree with a thing you wrote, Mrs. Davis. But consider this. I repeat: the level of casualties we are taking have no strategic or tactical significance. The relentless campaign of defeatist propaganda we’re getting, coupled with the continuous low level of casualties, the lack of notable progress in Iraq, and the tin ear of the Administration in public relations do have consequences on the home front, as you have correctly pointed out.
Dave,
I’m somewhat inspired by the debate over democratization that’s occurring in the Blogosphere right now. So I’m out to learn explore the right-wing’s reasoning.
I don’t expect to change anyone’s outlook and I don’t expect my to be changed either.
I’m just curious.
So my first question to you, based on your above post is this: Aren’t you at least a little troubled by the fact that the reasons presented to the people for going to war were quite different than the grand strategies that you highlight in your post?
I agree with you that such a strategy is, at least in part, likely the true reason for our invasion.
I can accept and live with a degree of Kissengeresque foreign policy. I think it stinks, but sometimes a dirty game must be played.
I can even accept killing for oil. I’ve participated in it and think it too stinks. I think that in the long term there must be a better way; more competent politicking, better brokering styles, alternative fuel development, realistic price expectations, etc However, again, when the politicians foul up somebody has to do the dirty work to protect out interests.
So I am not a stereotype liberal, not by a long shot. And I take the Constitution seriously.
How can you think for a second that it’s ok for our government to massively misdirect the American people? To unabashedly lie to us and then lie some more?
I am of course referring to the Iraqi WMD hype as the casus belli and then, in the light of a complete lack of WMD, the spreading democracy hype.
You seem quite comfortable – maybe even satisfied -with the idea that our government would pull such a stunt.
Avedis, it’s unclear to me how you could construe my remarks that way. I opposed the Gulf War, the intervention in Kosovo, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq all for slightly different but related reasons. To me there’s a difference between opposing U. S. action in anticipation and wanting the United States to lose once we’re under way.
Although, as I wrote, I didn’t consider the weapons of mass destruction argument as sufficient cause to go to war nor the desire to bring a better system of government to people who could really use one. However, I also don’t believe that the Administration was misdirecting or lying. I think the problem was incompetence not malfeasance.
For me the critical question is not which is the best choice but which is the better choice of those at hand and at this point staying with Iraq and uprooting the insurgency is obviously the better choice.
So when I read Juan Cole’s, for example’s, daily casualty reports, I think “How does this contribute to remaining steadfast and uprooting the insurgency?” It’s only purpose that I can see is to weaken resolve and I believe that’s vile. The same with harping over the clear crimes at Abu Ghraib. I condemn torture in all cases (including the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario), I don’t condone it. How does continuous harping and raising unfounded accusations increase the likelihood of the success or our war efforts?
I’ve written consistently that I believe that the detainees should have received immediate hearings to determine their status. The notion that they’re mostly injured innocents is absurd. How does harping on the subject strengthen the war effort?
You know, Dave, it’s unclear to me how I could construe your remarks that way.
Sorry.
Re-reading your post this a.m. it is clear that I was confused.
It appears that you and I agree on much, although I supported the Afghan. operation because I though that we needed to kill or capture terrorists. I did not support and notion of staying there and nation building. The history of that country is clear and not favorable to foreign intervention in the structures of its society.
I also believe that, in a free society, we need people like Juan Cole. In the balance, it’s better to have a free press that informs the people of all the facts – pleasant and unpleasant – than a press that simply cheerleads for the powers that be.
Yes, avedis, that’s why I was a little surprised at your initial reaction. To clarify my position on Afghanistan, I opposed the invasion for a number of reasons:
Additionally, I doubt that we have the stomach to stay there to establish a stable liberal democractic government (as I do in Iraq, as well).
And the reason I singled out Juan Cole for criticism is that while he has the knowledge and abilities to contribute to a positive solution he choses to be relentlessly defeatist and negative. I know he wishes that the whole thing would just go away (don’t we all?) but that is simply not going to happen and, willy-nilly, the Middle East will be reformed.
Hmmmm, well I can’t disagree with any of that (including the commentary on Juan Cole); only I did see the need for ground troops so as to enhance our ability to kill or capture al qaeda members – air power alone is never enough to eliminate a well dug in and determined enemy. Of course we screwed up so badly at Tora Bora that we might as well not have had the ground troops. I didn’t count on such gross incompetence.
Dave: criticizing Juan Cole for not offering a solution in a situation where the only “solution” is to leave seems kind of foolish.
gEye: so keep throwing those kids in the meatgrinder, eh?
That’s big of you. Real big.
How do the French support terrorists? Thats a mandacious and ridiculous slur? I presume you know nothing of the campaign the French suffered in the 90’s?
French support for Hamas is well-documented; that Hamas is a terrorist organization is withoutt question. Jeremy, you need to get better informed. And it’s spelled “mendacious”.