So You Think the War in Iraq was a Mistake

vanity | February 4, 2007 | Myself

[A_perfect_lady]

I have just finished reading a Ben Stein column about the recent SOTU adress. It started out very well, but then took what seemed to me an odd turn: Stein, along with several other conservative pundits, has come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq was just a big, huge mistake. I've been hearing this with increasing frequency, from people I did not expect to hear it from. Bill O'Reilly, Francis Fukuyama... even Charles Krauthammer sounds disenchanted.

Here is my question: When did everyone decide to agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake? I still don't think it was a mistake. Stein credits President Bush with the fact that we have not experienced a follow-up terrorist attack since 9/11. Why does he suppose we have not had another major attack here in the States? Because we took the war to them, just exactly as President Bush said we were going to do. We'll fight them on the streets of Baghdad so that we aren't fighting them HERE. Militants from Syria and Iran are streaming into Iraq and that's a pity, but it's especially a pity for them as they would much rather stream into the United States.

Is it a "mistake" because four years after the fall of the Ba'ath regime, we don't have a peaceful Iraq? Did anyone expect the Islamic world to sit idly by while we create something utterly foreign to their experience in the very heart of their world? It's ironic that I should quote Noam Chomsky in a time and place like this, but stopped clocks being right twice a day as they are, he once said something useful: Oppressors cannot bear the threat of a good example. Neither theocracies, monarchies, or pan-Arab socialists want to see a functioning democratic state in the muslim world. It's like teaching slaves to read: you'll never keep them subservient to Allah, the King, or the Dictator after they've seen the alternative. Did anyone anywhere think we were going to do that in four years? Did anyone think that the various powers that be (or would be) in the Middle East would take it lying down?

I still remember President Bush's address before going into Afghanistan: it will not be easy and it will not be quick. He meant it then and he means it now. We are not in Iraq to avenge ourselves for September 11th, or to find Osama bin Laden, or to save the world from WMD, and we never were. We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East. We are addressing the root causes of extremism, parochialism, fanaticism, state-sponsored hatred, and ignorance. It's a huge task. You might feel it was the wrong approach and we should have either wiped out half the muslim world in one fell swoop (an understandable reaction) or just hunkered down, surrounded ourselves with walls, wished Israel good luck, and watched from a safe distance as Islam spreads slowly but surely into Europe and Africa. I suppose we could have done that with the Communists, too, in the 20th century, and just hoped that we could hold out on our huge island when, at last, they came for us.

If this is your view then yes, invading Iraq was a big mistake. But please consider: we are dealing with a force very much like Communism, one that is intent upon spreading and has a great deal of momentum. We can crush the enemy, run from the enemy, or try to change the enemy. President Bush is trying to change the enemy. It's as valid an approach as the other two alternatives. I urge my fellow Americans not to give up on this approach after such a very short time, because if you think this undertaking is expensive in terms of national treasure and human lives, remember all the times countries have used the other two approaches. Remember the retreat from Cambodia and the killing fields that resulted. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not pointing to them as examples of American mistakes but as examples of the results of retreat or full-scale destruction, both valid but expensive ways of exiting or ending a war. Do we want to do either of those things again, just to claim peace in our time? All I am saying, is give war a chance.

[Kozak]

Stein lost me recently too. His latest rant in Am Spec he calls for Rummy to be brought up on chargew.
Disgusting.
Sometimes I think Ben needs his meds adjusted.

[mtnwmn]

When we left Vietnam and Cambodia, we left rice fields, not oil fields. We also left our honor when we reneged on our promises to the Vietnamese. Most politicians have no honor; they are too worried about getting reelected and that is our fault. I agree, jihadists are far more dangerous than the threat of communism ever was.

[A_perfect_lady]

Case in point: one man, Saddam Hussain, with a ruthless army and secret police apparatus, took care of business through extreme repression and fear.

We do not know that. We do not know if life in Iraq was one whit more stable under Hussein than it is now because they did not have a free press and we were not privy to the daily body count as we now are. The fact that we have uncovered over 400 mass graves from Hussein's reign tells me that the situation there was NEVER stable. We just didn't hear about it every day.

[winodog]

I think the followers of islam who want to kill us are moving here legally by plane loads and unguarded border crossings. I also think home grown mohos are sprouting up like dandilions in springtime.
I think its mohos vrs Christians all over again but this time its the mohos who are on the crusade in our lands. I think the real war will be fought in Europe, Africa, South America,and the USA

[A_perfect_lady]

If they had a way of coming into the USA and striking effectively they would have by now Iraq or no Iraq. It's not like there's just 10 of them and they're all Over There right now. It's a childish logic.

I disagree. Al Qaeda has been forced to redirect its resources. Just because the 19 who struck us on 9/11 were Saudis doesn't really differentiate them ideologically from those coming from Syria and Iran.

[BuffaloJack]

Fighting muzzies over there is much preferred to fighting muzzies here. It has the added benefit of keeping the Persians in Iran all worried and bothered. Unfortunately it's not where we usually prefer to fight our major wars, France.

[enotheisen]

There are two causes of peace; the peace that comes through capitulation and the peace that comes after a war that destroys your attacker. World War Two gave us the former; will the Lefties give us the latter?

[ForOurFuture]

Why does he suppose we have not had another major attack here in the States? Because we took the war to them, just exactly as President Bush said we were going to do. We'll fight them on the streets of Baghdad so that we aren't fighting them HERE.

It is tough-sounding rhetoric, but does it really make sense to "take the fight to them?" How many troops and how many billions of dollars and how many decades do you think it might take to kill every single Islamic extremist? Will we have hundreds of thousands of troops perpetually stationed in the heart of Arabia, drawing interference and distracting the terrorists? How long before the terrorists get smart, grow bored of blowing up our soldiers in Iraq, and return to blowing up our civilians in skyscrapers?

There will never come a point at which we can declare victory in Iraq. For every terrorist we kill in Iraq two more are born and another migrates from Pakistan to join the carnage.

[A_perfect_lady]

If attempting to help bring the Muslim world into the 21st century is delusional and utopian, what do YOU think we should do?

[Dr. Frank fan]

We are losing the peacekeeping and nation building effort.

Are we? In what sense?

[A_perfect_lady]

How many troops and how many billions of dollars and how many decades do you think it might take to kill every single Islamic extremist?

The goal is not to kill every single Islamic terrorist. The goal is to show the Muslim world that economic prosperity and individual freedom is preferable to dying for an ideology that keeps them in the dark ages. The truly hardcore types will never be converted, but the millions of muslims who are not so fanatical, given a choice between a comfortable life and a violent death may well choose the comfortable life. And that is when the tide could turn.

[Dr. Frank fan]

We have instead escalated the long-simmering civil war between islamic factions,

"We" did no such thing. If they are escalating a civil war, that's their doing. Don't make the lefty mistake of attributing all decisions and actions by foreign people to something "we" did.

Moreover, we have eliminated any chance of major military action - boots on the ground - to defeat and rebuild a larger creator of terror, iran.

I'm not convinced that "boots on the ground" in Iran was ever in the cards, ever planned or desired by anyone in a position of power, in the first place.

[bilhosty]

We knew it was a mistake when the Dem's won Congress and realized we ha two years to win it.

It as a mistake when we decided we committed to make these people into a Democracy. that is obviously not going to happen. It was a mistake to do anything but win it and get out. If you are going to stay there you need to have enough troops. It was a mistake not to put them there in the fist place. It was mistake not to deal with the MSM. The GOP needed to put the arms on Republican bankers investment houses and entrepreneur to buy up media properties and networks. they need to create several more Rupert Murdoch's. They need to do this before we ever launch troops again and should of done it before. Now we have two years to do it or See a Dem president and a Congress whose majority is out of our ability to reclaim. A new President and Congress who will easily flood the country with more illegal immigrants who keep them in power forever. Unless of course we can reverse this in two years, which we cannot. In short Bush failed.;

[Alberta's Child]

The 19 who struck us on 9/11 didn't need much help at all. They planned these attacks from places like London, Hamburg, and Jersey City . . . and the plane tickets were the most expensive part of their plan.

[Dr. Frank fan]

In this sense, they were completely misled by a number of officials in and out of government who predicted that establishing peace and stability in Iraq would be easy.

What number is "a number of"? Like, 2?

I never thought it would be "easy" and no one in government ever gave me that impression.

[We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East.] This kind of utopian, delusional, Wilsonian nonsense was utterly repudiated in 1917-18.

You mean, in 1917-18, some people said "we are going to begin changing the Middle East", and it didn't happen, and the way it didn't happen (i.e. some sort of metaphysical laws prevented it) utterly repudiated the very notion of changing the Middle East?

You do get points for using the adjective "Wilsonian", though. Anyone who uses the adjective "Wilsonian" automatically gets an advantage in the argument, or so I understand.

[Alberta's Child]

Show them how it works, and let them have at it.

If they act accordingly, then we can do business with them. If they don't, then we can't. It's really that simple.

And if their inherent instability presents a thread, we destroy them all.

. . . attempting to help bring the Muslim world into the 21st century . . .

This is what makes the U.S. approach truly delusional. Establishing a democracy in the Islamic world can only bring the Muslim world into the 21st century if a majority of the Muslim the world is capable of functioning in the 21st century.

Giving people with a 9th-century world view the right to elect their leaders does absolutely nothing to bring them into the 21st century. You'd think we would have learned that already, considering our own experience in places like Detroit, South Central L.A., etc.

[melancholy]

We do not know if life in Iraq was one whit more stable under Hussein

The international press would have heard of car bombs leveling marketplaces and would have seen tanks and the Republican Guards in the streets of Baghdad and other cities. If the press wouldn't have reported what's happening, travelers and the Iranians would have.

I'm not suggesting that we do like what Saddam did, however, terrorists and their enablers are not afraid of us because they know that we respect our values.

My point is that the violent history of Iraq dictates the use of extreme force inside and outside Iraq (bomb Iran) if you want to prevail. That said, the situation is aggravated by al Qa'eda and the Iranian mullahs.

.

[Emmett McCarthy]

I haven't read that much of his stuff, but I remember some good things. Not this one, though.

[Cogadh na Sith]

When someone says "I think the war is a mistake", what they really mean is:

"I wish we had enforced the no-fly-zones and sanctions until enough US pilots had been killed and Saddam had acquired enough conventional and unconventional weapons that he could have attacked our forces in the Gulf instead."

That's what it would of looked like if we hadn't fought then--we would have fought later and not on our own terms!

Of course I note that all the 'cut and runners' are baby-boomers for whom every war is Vietnam and every president is Nixon. Fair weather patriots....

[Dr. Frank fan]

It is tough-sounding rhetoric, but does it really make sense to "take the fight to them?" How many troops and how many billions of dollars and how many decades do you think it might take to kill every single Islamic extremist?

First off, "every single" is a ridiculous overstatement.

Second, maybe these complaints over "how many troops" and "how many billions of dollars" would start to carry some weight if our losses thus far were more than a blip by historical standards, and if our country were starting to show at least some signs of being at least somewhat impoverished by the effort. You know, if the sales of Nintendo Wii's were slowing down or something.

Till/unless that day comes, these are weirdly melodramatic complaints.

Will we have hundreds of thousands of troops perpetually stationed in the heart of Arabia, drawing interference and distracting the terrorists?

I don't know about "perpetually", but let's say, for the sake of argument, that I declare the answer to be:

"Yes, until further notice."

Now, tell me, what's your problem with that, exactly? Why, specifically, would that bother you?

How long before the terrorists get smart, grow bored of blowing up our soldiers in Iraq, and return to blowing up our civilians in skyscrapers?

Good question. But notice, if that happened, we could, and would draw down the Iraq presence. You can worry about a perpetual Iraq presence or you can worry about terrorists ceasing to focus on Iraq, but not both, because the latter would negate the necessity for the former.

There will never come a point at which we can declare victory in Iraq.

You are right. That is because, contrary to what most people seem to think, it is not really a "war" per se. The war was fought, and won, in 2003. What we have is a reconstruction and counterinsurgency, which takes longer, and which comes with no clear-cut "victory" per se. Ok?

The only real question is, are Americans tough enough to stick it out? The bizarre thing is, it's NOT AFFECTING the vast majority of Americans AT ALL, and yet the answer STILL might be "no". Which I don't get at all.

I can take complaints from people who are ACTUALLY AFFECTED by a thing. But 95% of what we hear are complaints from people whose precious, pampered, spoiled-brat lives haven't been TOUCHED at all by the Iraq endeavor. Is it really too much for me to ask those people to kindly shut the hell up? I suppose it is, but a guy can dream....