Dean, the best article I've seen on this subject was the one at the Weekly Standard, by Robert Kagan & William Kristol.

It's here: Why We Went to War.

I think you may have already linked to it.

The article details, with well-cited info, the absolute certainty of the recent "claims and lies" about the Bush Administration were once the same "claims and lies" put out by the Clinton Administration.

Either it is all true or it is all lies. What was true then, cannot be no longer true today (or when we launched the war against Iraq).

George Orwell-"In general, one is only right when either wish or fear coincides with reality-we are all capable of blieving things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps against the solid reality, usually on a battlefield"

As a partial remedy Orwell suggested keeping a journal and forcing oneself to look at it and ponder one's frequent errors and scarcer correct predictions.

The Liberals should try this

Numbers 3,4,5,6,7,8, and 10 are all problems that Iraq had with the UN, not the US (insofar as the UN can be distinguished from the UN)…

One of the things we did when we made war on Iraq the first time was to give up our own grievances and turn them into international ones. While I tend to agree with that decisions, one of the downsides is that we had to rely on the UN enforcing its own rules…

The UN choose not to do so. We can not then claim to be acting to support rules that those who made the rules do not want supported. If any of those were bilateral US/Iraq agreements, this might be a different story…

Yes, even #7 is not a good enough reason; those were American troops operating on behalf of the UN. If the UN does not value its peacekeeping attempts enough to start a war when troops acting on its behalf are fired on, that is call for the US to pull out, but not wage war…

Fortunately reason #1 was more than enough reason to jump in…

Dean correctly sets forth a number of reasons that were all presented by the Bush administration.

I will avoid the temptation to get caught up in semantics over which reason was "primary."

All I can say is, but for the "hiding WMD in violation of UN resolutions" argument, I (for one) would never have supported this war. As it was, I felt Bush was courageously enforcing resolutions that the UN passed, but was too weak-kneed to enforce.

I think many people (including conservatives) will -- if they are honest with themselves -- have to agree that if you took this WMD factor entirely out of the equation, the debate would have been very, very different. If it had even taken place at all.

I still think we did what we had to do, based on the knowledge we had at the time. And I don't regret it. And we weren't "lied" to, so shut up, Ted Kennedy.

But personally, I would not have supported our soldiers dying for anything less than avoiding the possibility of WMD falling into the hands of terrorists.

Just my view.

"Just as it's my right to point out what a bunch of dishonest, misinformed, stupid, or blind partisan dipshits they are"

My, my, my. Sounds suspiciously like the manifestation of the anger generated when denial smacks into the harsh reality. Of course, it seems to be your stock in trade to justify administration actions Dean but hypothetically, since any one of the reasons you innumerate justify invading Iraq, could we use just a few of them to justify invading Israel?

"Dean, the best article I've seen on this subject was the one at the Weekly Standard, by Robert Kagan & William Kristol."

Wow, a post-action justification from the very author of the policy. Very compelling.

Patterico,

I just thought the WMD angle was a clever bit of gamesmanship by the President...a way to hoist the UN and the entire elite opinion of the world upon its own petard.

We had to go into Iraq because overthrowing Saddam was central to winning the war on terrorism (winning requires regime change in ALL of the middle eastern tyrannies...but we can't militarily invade all of them; so, we needed an example that (a) we were unafraid, (b) that we were on the Arab peoples side and (c) that pluralistic democracy can work in an Arab nation). I had been wondering, by about September the 15th of 2001, what pretext we'd use to go into Iraq and I actually dismissed WMD because after 12 years of not doing anything about that issue, I didn't think we could pull off making it an issue again - I figured we go in based upon Saddam's continuing sponsorship of terrorism.

One needs to realize that Saddam was no dummy, and that he got Iraq economically entangled with France, Germany and Russia after GWI on purpose. Saddam knew that if he owed France, Germany and Russia literally tens of billions of dollars, and that if he brokered lucrative oil deals with France, Germany and Russia that were contingent on the UN sanctions being lifted, then Iraq would always have France, Germany and Russia in its corner at the UN. Saddam's intent was to drive a wedge between the US and Europe w.r.t. the UN sanctions, and it largely worked.

In fact it worked so well, that the UN sanctions were quickly starting to unravel, and frankly were in danger of being lifted (even though the US would have vetoed any such resolution out of the UN). Of course it would never be an option to leave Saddam and the Batthist's in power, and lift the sanctions. I hope this is obvious to all parties that are interested.

There really was no other solution to the Iraq "problem" other than to depose Saddam and his Baathists. 9/11 and the WoT gave the US the excuse to finally fix the problem, and the decision to invade Iraq was made on 9/12/2001. If it hadn't been for State (Powell) Iraq may have been taken care of even before Afghanistan.

The Hawks didn't even want to deal with the UN on the subject of Iraq prior to 1441, much less after 1441. If it hadn't been for State (Powell and all the other Kissinger containment twerps in State), then the Hawks would have toally bypassed the UN.

And it was State that was pushing the WMD angle, not the President and the Hawks. But that's the only argument State could have taken to the UN. You can't go to the UN and say, "Hey. Let's depose Saddam. Whadda you think?" That would go over real well with Libya, Syria, etc. don't you think?

Mark N. has it right (IMHO). Dean defends *any one* of the reasons in his list as making war worthwhile and, in some sense, each would be worthwhile. But, honestly, wouldn't most of these justify war almost anywhere? Bush is playing a very broad geopolitical strategy that, by its very nature, leaves him open to small-minded carping. Do you really ever expect to hear Bush stand before a lectern and says that the U.S. plans on fundamentally reshaping the *entire* Islamic world to make it less of a threat? Of course not. Is there anyone who has thought deeply about this who doesn't think such a reformation is necessary even if you disagree with the President's strategy for doing so? I'd hope not.

"since any one of the reasons you innumerate justify invading Iraq, could we use just a few of them to justify invading Israel?"

Why does everything come back to Israel?

I'm speaking generally, not to shep, because I see such statement made all the time. This lefty obsession with Israel isn't healthy. You all come off like nuts when you pretend there's no difference between Israel and Iraq, Iran, the Palestinians, and others. There are so many differences it's mind-boggling. There are virtually no similarities other than geography.

It's counterproductive to make such statements. Our reaction isn't "this is so compelling I must re-evaluate my position". Our reaction is "this person can't be trusted since they ignore mountains of evidence and focus solely on the inconsequential".

We trust Israel not to give chemical weapons to terrorists. Obviously they've earned that trust by not using them against the Palestinians. We'd love to say the same thing about Iraq, but we can't, can we?

Comparing Israel to Iraq because they both have WMD programs is like comparing the American Democratic Party to the USSR Communist Party because they both have a hierarchy. It's both true and meaningless.

Let's try to keep a grip on reality.

mj (even though you weren’t directing your thoughts at me), the reason Israel comes up is because people say stupid things like: “having (or hiding) WMDs justifies war”, and “violating UN resolutions justify war,” and even though Israel has done these things in spades, these same folks say Israel deserves financial aid and political support. Pointing out blatant hypocrisy and faulty logic is the only reason Israel comes up.

"the reason Israel comes up is because people say stupid things like: “having (or hiding) WMDs justifies war”, and “violating UN resolutions justify war,” "

Only people who are against the war limit the issues to these, and precisely so that they can throw another country in who meets the minimized criteria.

To my knowledge noone has ever said merely having WMD justifies war. The requirements include ties to terrorism and a reasonable basis to conclude the possessor is willing to use the WMD's. Also required is an actionable item, which in this case is Iraq's agreement to such terms in the cease-fire. It's only by absurdly limiting the issue that such comparisions are even made, which is why people making such comparisons shouldn't be trusted. They refuse to engage all the facts.

Calling this blatant hypocrisy shows how disingenuous you are since your conclusion requires you to pretend these other issues don't exist.

You're right, mj. Throwing the toilet at the wall and pointing to what sticks is much more honest.

WildMonk:

But, honestly, wouldn't most of these justify war almost anywhere?

I don't think so. I doubt we could make the case for attacking France, Japan, or Australia, as three examples.

I'm sure it bothers the leadership of Zimbabwe, Iran, and North Korea (among others) that such reasoning justifies a war against them. To the extent that this deters those states from doing stupid things, I don't mind it at all.

(Though, in the case of NK, it may spur them to do stupid things, which I do mind.)

Wildmonk,

Thanks for that - as for myself, I think opposition to the war to be absurd. Lots of things fuel it, none of them redounding to the credit of the war opponent:

1. Ignorance
2. Anti-Americanism
3. Anti-Bush/GOPism
4. Fear/cowardice

Thats about it - all opposition to the war can eventually be traced back to at least one of those reasons. To me, its a war - a nasty business in all respects, but something which needs to be done. It'd be nice if we had a clear-cut, WWII-style set of enemies to destroy, but we don't...its all tied up in massive complexities and thus our only hope is to change the institutions running the middle east...its either do this, or nuke the entire area, or just sit here and wait for a nuke to be used on us.

"Oh, the hell with it. The list goes on, and any one of them alone was sufficient to justify our action. But why bother pointing it out?"

Because, "We had oodles of reasons--oodles!" is not the kind of approach to inspire trust. Unless our citizens or property is imperiled, I don't think Saddam's human rights violations are a justification for invading--for arming peoples under siege, refusing aid, restricting trade and travel, yes; for believing that the invasion would leave Iraqis better off than they were before, yes.

But in geopolitical terms, it doesn't matter whether we can throw reasons around like grapeshot. What matters is the justification we in practice considered important enough to make us act and whether that's consistent with our other actions. That's what other countries are going to pay attention to and formulate their own policies by. We can't always strain to be likable, but we do need to present ourselves as principled rather than opportunistic.

Please excuse my steam, ladies and gentlemen, while I vent for a moment.

I have a deep appreciation for debate for the sake of debate itself, but this is an area that causes me a lot of frustration. Discussions of the Invasion of Iraq tend to wander a bit, as well as leave off the culpability of the other members of the coalition. My personal frustration, though, lies in the apparent downplay of the more urgent issue.

Now what?

The coalition is firmly entranched in Iraq, and shows all indications of preparing for an extended stay. You may support the troops, or you may not. You may disagree with the intent of the invasion, the motivation, the strategic actions, and the evidence against the former ruler. Groovy. I'll be looking for you at the polls in '04. In the mean time, we have a country full of people, recently released from decades of autocratic rule, that are starting to ask some difficult quesstions. They need some answers, and, in the interim, would be grateful for running water, electricity, and some internal security, thank you very much. I know there are some people demanding the immediate withdrawl of all coalition forces from Iraq, as I am sure that there are some that aren't just kidding when they say Iraq should be the "51st state". Dismissing the fringe, we are left with the question of who stays in Baghdad, how long, what is the exit strategy, and how best to facilitate the transition to self-rule.

If the service members that make up the coalition were given the order to leave today, few if any would argue. However, the ones I see on a daily basis would be, to quote one, "heavily pissed if (we) went through all this just to have things go back to they way they were before we arrived."

Blogs can be a great place for "Monday-After-the-Cup" discussions and analyses of the events, but, in all earnest, I would be thrilled to see a meaningful dialogue between the two camps in this issue regarding the topics mentioned above.

Thank you for your patience. My vents are now closing.

Please excuse my steam, ladies and gentlemen, while I vent for a moment.

I have a deep appreciation for debate for the sake of debate itself, but this is an area that causes me a lot of frustration. Discussions of the Invasion of Iraq tend to wander a bit, as well as leave off the culpability of the other members of the coalition. My personal frustration, though, lies in the apparent downplay of the more urgent issue.

Now what?

The coalition is firmly entranched in Iraq, and shows all indications of preparing for an extended stay. You may support the troops, or you may not. You may disagree with the intent of the invasion, the motivation, the strategic actions, and the evidence against the former ruler. Groovy. I'll be looking for you at the polls in '04. In the mean time, we have a country full of people, recently released from decades of autocratic rule, that are starting to ask some difficult quesstions. They need some answers, and, in the interim, would be grateful for running water, electricity, and some internal security, thank you very much. I know there are some people demanding the immediate withdrawl of all coalition forces from Iraq, as I am sure that there are some that aren't just kidding when they say Iraq should be the "51st state". Dismissing the fringe, we are left with the question of who stays in Baghdad, how long, what is the exit strategy, and how best to facilitate the transition to self-rule.

If the service members that make up the coalition were given the order to leave today, few if any would argue. However, the ones I see on a daily basis would be, to quote one, "heavily pissed if (we) went through all this just to have things go back to they way they were before we arrived."

Blogs can be a great place for "Monday-After-the-Cup" discussions and analyses of the events, but, in all earnest, I would be thrilled to see a meaningful dialogue between the two camps in this issue regarding the topics mentioned above.

Thank you for your patience. My vents are now closing.

Sean,

Good point, but in the end opportunism in war is often rewarded....we are to win this war, and if this means we kill no more people, thats fine; and if this means we kill all of them, thats fine; and if this means we kill some and leave others alive, thats fine...as long as we win.

Personally I think we've nearly got it exactly right (I would have gone into Iraq sooner, and already be in Syria...but that is just my second-guessing); but, whatever it takes.

Whatever it takes to do what, Mark? I hope I'm not pressing too fine a point here. What do we think Asia and northern Africa need to look like before we consider our interests secured? How far off does a threat have to be in order to be not imminent but actionable? To what point will Iraq need to have developed before we consider it stable enough for us to pull out?

The problem is not that no good answers have been offered to these questions; the problem is that offering too many answers, each of which sounds great but implies a different set of priorities, makes it look as if the goal is just to find a way to barge in and remake countries to our liking. Opportunism in pursuing specific strategic ends in a war is very useful. Opportunism guiding the overall proceedings is cause for worry.

Since Dean is on a tear about perceived Bush-hating, I thought I might toss this out, too: I don't think that his persona translates very well internationally. I'm talking purely about image, not about whether he's actually sincere or manipulative or smart or dumb or plummy or homespun or saintly or evil. A lot of Americans look at him and see a grounded, humble, easy-going but serious-minded man. But at least in Asian terms, I think there's an air of gravitas that he lacks. The only way I can think to say it is that, when he speaks as our head of state, he doesn't convey a sense of...ritual. I wish I had a better sense of why I keep coming back to that word, but there it is.

We had to go. We have a war going on like no other war in history. It is coming in many horrible forms. I remember the two democrats going over to Iraq acting like two damn fools! Our troops are over there, and these two idiots come checking it out. Wondering if things were really so bad. Then Sean Penn shows up going to the hospitals with his camera, another damn fool.

You bet this is political nonsense. When Al Gore was thinking of running he says on the Tonight Show, " There is no connection with Al Queda and Iraq, I don"t know where the present administration is coming up with this! ".

This attack on the Bush administration is awful but more importantly, is we have some outstanding trops out there protecting us and they damn well deserve our support! THEY DO NOT NEED TO HEAR THIS POLITICAL FIGHTING GOING ON IN THEIR HOMELAND! It is them and their commanding officers that are doing , planning and trying their very best to stay 20 steps ahead of the evil terrorists and work under some pretty severe weather, sleeping deprevation and stress. And they do it for us, their children, their children's future. Those politcians that sit in comfy offices need to shut up!! Excuse me Dean and your readers, I just got furious, can you tell?

Sean,

I like your points. Quite a bit is unsettled, but that's life. We make different judgements based on each set of circumstances. It seems to me that much of the criticism stems not from Iraq but from the uncertainty of the policy. That's fair, but critics should admit this focus rather than pretending this fact somehow proves the Iraq actions illegitimate.

All this pretending that the Bush doctrine means we must invade Syria, Iran, and North Korea (and Israel) is nothing but hyperventilating by those who can't formulate legitimate arguments against the Iraq action. The Bush Doctrine is much more limited than they pretend, and their position is nothing but an attempt to frighten the gullible.

Lastly, I disagree on the Bush issue. I think the basis for international dislike of Bush stems from his policies rather than his person. The international community (except Thatcher) hated Reagan too, but then the problem was he was only good at appearances. Now all of a sudden Bush's relative ineffectiveness in person is the problem. There's no avoiding that whatever weakness a conservative has is the problem, even though those same attributes are a benefit when exhibited by "liberals" like Clinton.

Any Republican is going to have a harder time with international lefty leaders, and Bush is farther from them than any president in memory. Reagan may be further right (I've seen differing opinions on this), but most of the international leaders are further left today than they were when Reagan was president. There's also no Soviet Union to draw everyone together.

I don't think anyone should vote for our president because of his ability to get along with international leaders. Especially at a time when those leaders are advocates of ruinous economic polices. Lefty Europeans would rather we moved left with them so the disparity of economic results wouldn't make them look so bad.

"What do we think Asia and northern Africa need to look like before we consider our interests secured?"
They need to look like they are not a threat to the security of the US. As a hint, giving weekly (on Fridays) harangues promising to destroy Americans and roast our bellies in hell is *not* going to convince us that you aren't a threat.

"How far off does a threat have to be in order to be not imminent but actionable?"
Depends on the level of risk. Say you have a .0001% chance of being killed in a car accident while driving to work. Do you accept that risk and drive to work? Consider also that there is nobody declaring (by words or actions) that they would welcome this event.

Say there is a .000001% chance of a container ship carring a crude nuke blowing up in NYC harbor, killing a few million people. Consider that there *is* somebody --- an identificable somebody --- that would welcome this.

What I say is: "That's their choice. If they declare that they would like to see us die, then it is reasonable for us to consider them to be a threat to us." And for us to act in whatever manner and whatever time we choose, to counter that threat.

"Blogs can be a great place for "Monday-After-the-Cup" discussions and analyses of the events, but, in all earnest, I would be thrilled to see a meaningful dialogue between the two camps in this issue regarding the topics mentioned above."

That would be a very interesting and useful discussion. But, not right now, we have to address Dean's pathologically partisan question about the many justifications for the war.

OK people, pen and pencil and your world atlas in hand; let's begin. Go to all the countries in the Middle-East, North Africa, Asia, eastern Europe, etc., and see how many countries for which you can construct a dirty little list, like the one Dean made. No big trick is it?

The ONLY question that is practically relevant to the merit of this war is: with our limited physical resources and international support, was this the best possible use of those resources, relative to our other choices? We will never know the answer to that question and won’t even be able to have intelligent conjecture until at least 10-20 years have gone by (about how long it took for our former Iraq and Afghanistan policies to bite us in the ass). But, isn’t it more fun to keep responding to Dean’s problem?

Sean,

What, precisely, they have to look like is not definable...but they do have to be at least reasonable fascimiles of pluralistic democracies. The reason for this is that politicians in democratic country's are very wary of starting wars - its a risky business, see? and its much, much easier to buy votes with a road-building project than with a "send your sons ten thousand miles away to be killed" program (as an aside, people who think that GW cooked this up for political reasons are astoundingly stupid - the risks of war are so gigantic that no one enters into it unless they are (a) insane or (b) forced into it...call GW what you want, but insane ain't it).

Iraq will be seen in future ages as the defining event of our times - the United States, feeling pressed by a growing terrorist/islamofascist threat, bestired itself from its lethargy and sent its best sons and daughters over to a foreign land to risk their lives for other people. In doing this task, the future will be decided - we can flunk the test and set off a string of catastrophes or we can brace ourselves to our stern duty and midwife a new birth of liberty in the world - securing to ourselves and to the world a freer, more prosperous and more peaceful world. This thing we have done, under the direction of President Bush, is a sublime thing - lets not meanly lose it.

In our past, our greatest President once observed that a nation cannot live forever half slave and half free...in our increasingly interconnected world, we have learned that the world cannot live forever half slave, and half free. The house divided must become all one thing, or the other. This is what we are doing - and we have to opportunistically take whatever comes our way which can help us to the ultimate goal. I don't care a fig for the national sovereignty of other nations...least of all do I care about the phony sovereignty wielded by un-elected tyrants. I am also entirely uninterested in the opinions of anyone out there making some justification of the need to preserve this or that tyranny - I only want us to win and do whatever it takes to win.

Dean, you wrote "The list goes on, and any one of them alone was sufficient to justify our action". It's hard to believe you just wrote that.

Here is the main reason for going to war: Someone _attacks_ you. An army shows up, in one of your cities. You kill them. That is the ONLY completely justifiable, slam-dunk, "it's ok" reason for war.

What you are talking about are levels of political BS. Do you seriously believe that, isolated from the other points, violating the oil-for-food program is a trigger for war? I don't think you do, but that's what you just wrote.

There were good reasons to liberate Iraq, and there were good reasons, at the time, to do the same thing in any number of countries around the world. Based on the criteria you've provided for going to war, we could be in a war almost anywhere in the world, if we felt like it. We don't.

The real question is not whether Iraq deserved freedom from Hussein. The real question is why we picked Iraq, as opposed to other countries, where we might have done more good with a lot less money?

The Administration _selected_ Iraq, out of a list of countries where an active military policy could create change, to implement long-standing neo-conservative policy. The answer to the selection question was, at the time, "because Iraq support and supplies terrorists, and because Iraq has WMD". We now know, with reasonable certainty, that neither of these things is true. My opinion is that the White House went fishing in the murky waters of intelligence, and fashioned justification out of selective inclusion.

Creating a liberal straw man who simply says "no justification" may be an entertaining exercise for you, but that person pretty much does not exist.

Every time you say "there WERE valid reasons for going into Iraq" what you're really saying is that you DON'T CARE about truthfulness before a war, and that the ends justify the means.

And to bring this thing around full circle: If we're not in a war because we've been attacked, we'd better be pretty damn airtight in our reasoning. Bush took a gamble and he lost. The bet wasn't on the outcome of the war -- that was a foregone conclusion. The bet was that evidence justifying the incredible size of the expenditure would show up.

All that being said...the goal of a democratic Iraq is a worthy one. I believe that an open debate on the question of whether military intervention was the best way to achieve it is appropriate.

errrrr isn't the USA guility of over half over half of these too? No, more.

Stop being so silly, so many, many words - right, wrong, should, shouldn't, he did, we did. This is all 'he hit me first mama.' stuff.
We could all write here and in other palces forever and nopt one little thing will change, not one person will change their mind. Liberals, conseratives, bah humbug to ya ll.
Jp
kisses

Ross, are you on drugs, or what?

Yes, we have not found WMDs, true, but there is an incredible number of examples of Iraqi support of terror groups, including the camp with a grounded jet for training (to name just one).

If you had said there was no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq were allied, you might be closer to the truth.

And since when did Dean mention "slam dunk" justifications for the war? Did I miss something? It's really sad when people have to twist around what has been said, then interpret that to suit their own convictions, and finally use that intepretation as a valid conclusion.

Try reasoning with facts, first. In fact, try introducing some facts to back up any of your statements.

... Going back an checking Dean's list, I will say that I disagree with the statement that "any one of [these reasons] alone was sufficient to justify our action." But that doesn't weaken the overall case, I think.

So I say to you: in the face of all the evidence unconvered that Iraq was, in fact, providing support to many terrorist organizations, please provide factual evidence to the contrary.

Also, please try to refute Dean's "top 10 list" as factually incorrect.

I also ask that you stop twisting around what Dean has said, and saying silly things like
'Every time you say "there WERE valid reasons for going into Iraq" what you're really saying is that you DON'T CARE about truthfulness before a war, and that the ends justify the means,' because Dean has never claimed any of that. You are just putting words into his mouth.