The War Over The War
Dave Price
Well, Bush is finally defending the decision to go to war, and Glenn stirs up quite a blogstorm with this post arguing Bush should question the patriotism of those making false claims about the misuse of pre-war intelligence, because they are being unpatriotic. Glenn's a brave man, as throwing the unpatriotic card out there risks his long-established moderate status and makes him a target for a lot of hate mail. But he's not wrong. And of course, Kevin Drum immediately quotes him absent the relevant context, which I can only interpret as either deliberately misleading or implying questioning anyone's patriotism, ever, is always wrong.
Dean addresses the "questioning patriotism" issue below pretty well. In addition, let me ask those who protest the "unpatriotic" label: is Jimmy Massey unpatriotic? Is it unpatriotic to suggest that conventional munitions are WMD and that the fact we used them means the U.S. no better than Saddam? Is it unpatriotic to equate the state-sanctioned torture, abuse, maiming, and murder that occurred under Saddam with the unsanctioned, far milder U.S. abuses which were promptly investigated and punished, as Ted Kennedy has done? Was is unpatriotic for Joe Wilson to lie about who sent him to Niger and what he found there? This is not a difficult standard to understand: dishonesty regarding our national security is unpatriotic.
Kevin Drum also attempts to rebut Norman Podhoretz's piece demonstrating beyond any doubt that Bush did not lie about the Iraqi intel, but does a pretty weak job. Drum's assertions boil down to this: Bush didn't advertise the evidence that suggested Saddam might not have WMD as strongly as he did the evidence that suggested he did. But.. so what? Neither did anyone else, as far as I can remember. I don't remember any Dems standing up and saying "But are we really sure he has WMD? What about this other evidence that says he might not?" I do remember quite a few standing up and saying exactly the same things Bush was saying, based on exactly the same intelligence (though some agree with the Dems' claim they lacked the intelligence Bush possessed)
Besides the fact the consensus was Saddam had WMD, the Bush admin can be forgiven, post-9/11, for assuming the worst-case scenario; in fact, I think that ought to be encouraged. Besides, it was Saddam's job to prove he didn't have WMD by cooperating immediately, fully and proactively (no one has yet argued he fulfilled that). He was the person who controlled whether we went to war. When he failed to comply, our choices were go to war or admit we were never going to enforce the inspections regime.
We should keep in mind too that in 1991 our intelligence on Iraq was also flawed — in the exact opposite direction. Saddam turned out to be much closer to nukes than thought at the time. Given the fact we are not omniscient, that's the kind of situation where if you're going to make an error, you'd like to err on the side of assuming he has more capability than he does, as opposed assuming he has has less and waking up one morning to find either Saddam with a nuclear deterrent or perhaps a smoking crater where Washington DC used to be.
Remember, too, that Saddam did not re-admit inspectors until our troops deployed, support for sanctions was collapsing, and the Kay report did say there was a vast secret network of WMD labs being maintained. Does anyone think Saddam had reformed? If not, you must admit that if we hadn't gone to war, Saddam would sooner or later have restarted his WMD programs, making the whole point of existing stockpiles moot.
And of course all this is besides the fact we'd be looking at decades of enforcing the no-fly zones, and 25 million Iraqis would not now live in a free democracy. Those matter too.
Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with one thing. People should be allowed to remain critical of leadership at all times. I don't care if the Apocalypse is happening we need to be able to criticize our leadership or America is in Big, Big trouble.
Mind you, there are critics who do have specific and constructive suggestions. Some are from the right ("invade Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia now you pussy!") and on the left ("turn Iranq over to the U.N. and the Arab League.") I disagree with both propositions but they don't offend me or strike me as dumb, just misguided.
The thing is that at this point it's so obvious to me that Iraq's on the right path. A Constutition approved by a massive voter turnout and voted in with over 70% of the vote. Sunni radicals increasingly turning to the political process. A third set of elections in just a few weeks, this time under a Constitution written and approved entirely by Iraqis. Iraqi troops increasingly taking on their own security with the U.S. slowly being reduced to more of a support and logistics role. That's progress by any reasonable standard I'd say.
That said, politically, I suspect that if by summer 2006 it's not obvious that we're doing better in the press, it's going to require a radical rethinking.
Meanwhile, there's every indication Iran's new hardline leadership is even more irrational than Saddam was. I'm guessing the debate will begin over whether to create an Afghan-style Iranian liberation force, staged in Iraq and supported by US airpower and spec ops, to remove the Iranian regime without the need for US occupation.
What a breath of fresh air! Precisely when did perfection become a requirement for government, business, and individuals? The media and the academics are demanding infallibility from everyone but themselves. I guess that's to be expected from the likes of them, but for one group of politicians to expect it of other politicians is truly remarkable.
As far as dissent being the highest form of patriotism, that is only true if the dissent is honest and based on a sincere desire by the dissenter to improve the lives of all their countrymen. Not only is dissent for political or personal gain not the highest form of patriotism, it's not any form.
"Those who are trying to get us to surrender or otherwise to bring about a defeat in this (or any) War are, by definition, not patriotic. They are traitors."
JRogge wrote:
"Those who are seeking a retreat or surrender are the most extreme of protesters."
Not necessarily. They need not be protesters at all.
JRogge wrote:
"Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with one thing. People should be allowed to remain critical of leadership at all times. I don't care if the Apocalypse is happening we need to be able to criticize our leadership or America is in Big, Big trouble."
Absolutely true.
"....It is necessary now, as it has always been necessary, to look behind words of individuals to find from their actions what their true purpose is."
-John Foster Dulles (The Vital Letters of Russell, Krushchev, Dulles, London, Macgibbon &Lee, 1958)
"Well, I don't like to make charges about the motives of other people. But there is a legal doctrine which says that 'a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts.' I think that perhaps this is a situation where the legal dictum is applicable."
-John Foster Dulles (U.S. News &World Report, Vol. 41, No. 10, September 7, 1956, p. 110)
"The consequences of Communist conquest are now so demonstrably evil that to abet the conquest is a supreme crime."
-John Foster Dulles (Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 618, May 7, 1951, p. 728)
These people simply do not have the background or the psychological makeup to understand the world of the individual who must make real decisions under conditions of time pressure and uncertainty. Sadly, they rarely have the judgement or humility to recognize their own limitations.
This is why I have stated that it is a truism that no matter what operation you look at, if you go in looking for failure and incompetence, you WILL find it. Mistakes WILL be made, and there WILL be lapses of judgement, and there WILL be unforeseen consequences. PERIOD.
Show me your last receipt for when you went grocery shopping. I can make you look like an incompetent shopper very easily. I simply look at every purchase you made and decide whether you were insufficiently thrifty, and point out where you could have saved money.
What, you say you are an extremely thrifty shopper and buy everything cheap? Great. Now I'll tear you apart for choosing inferior products. Or for not buying American. Or for not supporting union-made goods. Or for supporting lazy unions by buying their products.
Oh, and what if you failed to foresee the sale on some of your purchases that comes up tomorrow? You incompetent dolt, you should have known!
Ain't that great how that works?
I would LIKE to think we're contemplating military action against the regime in Tehran. I just don't see the political will, however. We barely mustered enough to liberate Iraq from fascist tyranny.
We might pull an Afghanistan, but I see increased support for the resistance, both under the table and in speeches, as the most likely option for anything less than 4 years from now.