From the continuation...
Bacevich responded:
That’s why I myself tend not to buy into the charge that Bush and others blatantly lied us into this war. I think they believed most of what they claimed. You should probably put believe in quotes, because it amounts to talking yourself into it. They believed that American omnipotence, as well as know-how and determination, could imprint democracy on Iraq. They really believed that, once they succeeded in Iraq, a whole host of ancillary benefits were going to ensue, transforming the political landscape of the Middle East. All of those expectations were bizarre delusions and we’re paying the consequences now.
“All of those expectations were bizarre delusions and we’re paying the consequences now.”
True. Remember good old Wolfie? The Iraqis will pay for the whole thing? These neo-cons are terrible, our republic can’t take much more of this “leadership”
My response to that is to ask why he believes it is a bizarre delusion? Germany and Japan were rebuilt successfully after WWII and the USA has reaped tremendous benefits. Is there something specific about the Middle East - and Islam - that prevents those societies from being reformed and transformed? Is that the point that Bacevich is unknowingly making? The problem isn't that we tried to transform Iraq, it is that you can't transform a corrupt culture unless you utterly destroy it first, which is exactly what happened to Germany and Japan. In Iraq we have tried to build on a corrupt, militaristic, violent, and backwards culture.
It is conceivable that the Administration deluded themselves into thinking that democracy could be planted in Iraq, and thus lead us into a quagmire. This is certainly a better, more intelligent argument than "BUSH LIED!".
The problem is that nobody really knew how hard the Iraqi people would fight for their own freedoms. It was an honest assertion that the Iraqi people wanted to be free and most Iraqis would fight for that freedom. It is disingenuous to claim that this was a delusion from the start.
Iraq is a success on many levels and the fight for liberty there is far from over. While there are numerous points of failure in the past and likely points of failure in the future, the global trend toward democratic governance continues. Labeling the war as machinations of Neo-Cons is a cop out. It's an off switch for a brain unable to digest the scope of the disease, much less a cure.
Smart Bomb mania has been an increasingly dominant phenomenon in our military and politics for decades. It's foolish to pin these bizarre disillusions on the Bush Administration when most of the world has bought into it. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush know history... They know their place in it. They will find themselves in good company with Lincoln, Churchill and more. All of the second guessing and reluctance seen through the lens of history will look pathetic. The Bush Administration will rightfully look courageous.
I do not envy this father one bit. Not because his son died fighting for justice in an American war. That is an honor. I do not envy him because he does not believe in this war. People who do not believe in anything will always live in fear of the people who do. True believers aren’t afraid of anything. That is how I know his son did not die in vain.
God Bless You, Andrew Bacevich Jr.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
October 31, 1998
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998.
What the neocoms believed might occur after the overthrow of Saddam is really beside the point. Overthrow of his government had been US policy since 1998, which is the reason why the Clintons et al came so willingly on board. Saddam had been kept in power because the Sunni Arabs wanted him to stay in power, but he refused to stay in his place and had spent 9 years fighting against the restraints put upon him. Four reasons for the failure in Iraq: (1) the Sunni Arabs were unwilling to let a Shia-dominated government stand up in Iraq, one that might lean toward Iran, but one that definitely would have reduced the Sunni Arab influence to almost zero—they the “natural” rulers of the land. So from the beginning they sent money and men into the fray to keep the fight going, with Baathists and Al Qaesa alike serving as surrogates for the Arab governments. (2) the unwillingness of the US to stand up a government from among the exiles and support it from Day-one. In 1944 the Allies had DeGaulle in their saddle-bags when they invaded France and did many times more physical damage to France than we did to Iraq. (3) We had lost the trust of the Shia when we abandoned them in 1991. (4) The electoral system we imposed on the country basically meant a government by cliques and par ties rather than by real constituencies. The Sunni politicans represent almost no one. Worst it in effect divided the country by sect and ethnic group. We would have been better off dividing the country the way the Turks did: three slices centering on the major city of south, central and North.