An Iraq of Myth and Fantasy

National Review ^ | 2/23/2016 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Servant of the Cross]

Donald Trump's account of the Iraq War is all wrong. Why aren't his Republican opponents saying so?

Donald Trump constantly brings up Iraq to remind voters that Jeb Bush supported his brother's war, while Trump, alone of the Republican candidates, supposedly opposed it well before it started.

That is a flat-out lie. There is no evidence that Trump opposed the war before the March 20, 2003 invasion. Like most Americans, he supported the invasion and said just that very clearly in interviews. And like most Americans, Trump quickly turned on a once popular intervention - but only when the postwar occupation was beginning to cost too much in blood and treasure. Trump's serial invocations of the war are good reminders of just how mythical Iraq has now become.

We need to recall a few facts. Bill Clinton bombed Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) on December 16 to 19, 1998, without prior congressional or U.N. approval. As Clinton put it at the time, our armed forces wanted "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons." At the time of Clinton's warning about Iraq's WMD capability, George W. Bush was a relatively obscure Texas governor.

Just weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, after the legislation passed Congress on a House vote of 360 to 38 and the Senate unanimously. The act formally called for the removal of Saddam Hussein, a transition to democracy for Iraq, and a forced end to Saddam's WMD...

[odawg]

Very good point.

[Chewbarkah]

Your observations are interesting. Historians generally should stay out of politics. They enjoy an advantage over political leaders, in that leaders in power have to actually DO THINGS in real time. (Well, Obama doesn’t, but that’s an aberration). Sometimes leaders choose wisely, sometimes not; inaction can be worse that unwise action (Bill Clinton showed us both). Historians are used to the luxury of analyzing events long after the dust has settled, and can criticize without the burdens of urgency or responsibility. VDH would be wise to keep that in mind.

I don’t claim any prescience on the Iraq War, and I do not recollect any big protests from Trump. But I do recall wanting to hear G.W. Bush make a clear case for it based on geopolitical analysis, rather than the sort of fear-mongering and patriotic blather than always screens adventures from real scrutiny. StratFor published a good geopolitical analysis before the war began. But Bush did not pursue a comprehensive strategy for containing Iran and controlling the Middle East through holding linchpin territory, presumably because Wolfowitz, Feith and other NeoConartists convinced him of a happy unicorn narrative: if Saddam was ousted, western-style democracy would break out spontaneously throughout the region. They missed the fact that Saddam and other secular dictators were holding back considerable popular desire for Islamism, and that these were strengthened by western intrusion in their lands. The Arab Spring is the fruit of their labor, and that’s turned out well. The NeoCons are discredited by events, and should not offer any more of their wisdom.

This is all easy to see now. Whether Trump knew it then or not, at least he seems to have learned that wars lead to problems and disasters patriotism can’t fix. My guess is hat Trump actually read Thucydides in his youth. I wish GWB had.

Sorry for running on.

[Trumpinator]

No, it is a good reply. I was just observing the politics of the neocon (if we can call VDH a neocon sportsperson for the sake of this discussion).

I just found it interesting that instead of attack Trump for being against the Iraq war (like how the Dixie Chicks were attacked) the critique on Trump has been focused on if he really was against the Iraq War before everyone else.

So clearly, defending the war is now the "wrong side" of the debate.

Without me making any judgement as to whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not and whatever your side of the debate on the Iraq War (you could be pro war and principled) it does seem that it is no longer good politics to proclaim it as a good idea. You can be anti Trump and still see that as an amazing turn around for inter party orthodoxy.