A decade later and the Iraq debate is still contaminated with myths (from 2013)

foreignpolicy.com ^ | 17 March, 2013 | Peter Feaver

[marktwain]

ere on the 10-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I wonder how long it will be before we can discuss the war free from the contamination of myths. It may be sooner than many myth-purveyors expect. Just listen to this lecture by Mel Leffler, one of the leading historians of American diplomacy. He has been a harsh critic of Bush-era diplomacy and his speech does accept some of the conventional critique (specifically about the "hubris" of the Bush administration), but his analysis is far more balanced than the conventional wisdom on the topic. All in all, Leffler’s analysis is a promising example of myth-busting.

For my part, the myths that get thrown at me most often have to do with why the war happened in the first place. Here are five of the most pervasive myths:

1. The Bush administration went to war against Iraq because it thought (or claimed to think) Iraq had been behind the 9/11 attacks. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the Bush Administration did explore the possibility that Hussein might have collaborated with al Qaeda on the attacks. Vice President Dick Cheney (along with some officials in the secretary of defense’s office) in particular believed this hypothesis had some merit, and in the early months gave considerable weight to some tantalizing evidence that seemed to support it. However, by the fall of 2002 when the administration was in fact selling the policy of confronting Hussein, the question of a specific link to 9/11 was abandoned and Cheney instead emphasized the larger possibility of collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda. We now know that those fears were reasonable and supported by the evidence captured in Iraq after the invasion.

[marktwain]

Thanks.

Very well done.

[Alberta's Child]

Hard to believe you are serious about that. The Establishment Media has been perhaps the biggest power in American Politics for 60 years.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my post. This is why I said what I did. If George W. Bush did not anticipate the influence of "the biggest power in American Politics for 60 years," then he shouldn't even be allowed to dress himself in the morning.

[Alberta's Child]

You're an expert when you need to be an expert.

Well, no. That's the point. If I'm NOT an expert and even I could see this disaster unfolding, then surely it was being managed by a bunch of simpletons.

You're completely ignorant when you need to be ignorant.

Well, no. How do you turn something into a dysfunctional mess when it is already a dysfunctional mess?

[marktwain]

If George W. Bush did not anticipate the influence of “the biggest power in American Politics for 60 years,” then he shouldn’t even be allowed to dress himself in the morning.

---

They turned on him on a dime. Being a big political power, and being willing to use that power to lose a war for political puposes is considerably different.

[TigersEye]

You are certainly an expert at deploying straw men and sophistry.

[marktwain]

If George W. Bush did not anticipate the influence of “the biggest power in American Politics for 60 years,” then he shouldn’t even be allowed to dress himself in the morning.

---

I admit, perhaps the biggest mistake G. W. Bush made was underestimating the hostility of the Establishment Media, and its willingness to fabricate lies to destroy his presidency.

But it was not so obvious that this was the case before we invaded to end the war in Iraq. I do not recall a single person predicting it. Maybe you can help my memory. There might have been a couple.

[Lorianne]

Well then, perhaps we have learned a lesson about doing business with people in the Middle East?

Yes? No?

[Keb]

Reply to: “The only error in your thinking is the way you present the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a continuum dating back to the first Gulf War in 1990-91. You are correct in describing it this way, but that doesn’t necessarily make it justifiable. In fact, when the Saudi influence in radical Islam started getting some scrutiny after 9/11, a lot of people began to wonder about something I’ve contended since 1990 — that perhaps the U.S. was on the wrong side in Desert Storm.”

---

The point I was trying to make was about the younger President Bush’s handling of the war he inherited. That didn’t address the rightness of engaging in the first place (which was debatable), or President Clinton’s strategy of “marking time with bombs”, which was an atrocity. (Ideally, a new President should be able to instantly implement his strategy for a war he inherits. But I can’t fault an administration for marking time while preparing its strategy, even though people are dying the while. I do, however, fault an administration for not being ready with its strategy after eight years in office.)

While the decision to go to war at the beginning of 1991 is debatable, I’m going to have to disagree with you about it. We were on the right side of that one, and (what is not the same) getting involved was the right thing to do. Saddam Hussein had just conquered Kuwait, and looked to be preparing to invade Saudi Arabia. The Saudis deserve all the criticism they’ve gotten, for their support of Wahhabism. But letting Saddam Hussein take over the whole region, would have been a disaster, especially for Europe. We are partially insulated from European problems by an ocean, but anything that hits Europe that hard would be a disaster for the United States, as well. Shutting Saddam down was the right thing to do, in spite of the costs of war.

[TBP]

The WMDs Assad was using recently could be the ones the Russians took there at Saddam Hussein’s request for safekeeping.

[Ambrosia]

Thank you....it was the best explanation to date. I gave up trying

[TBP]

The Bush administration gave 17 reasons for the war.

[Ambrosia]

Thank you for good explanation of things regarding Iraq.

I read that 550 tons of yellowcake was found and sold to Canada three years later, during Iraq War. I also know that we should have went to Iraq sooner instead of giving a notice, almost unheard of in previous wars....there was a convoy of trucks on Fox News that went into Syria from Iraq prior to start of Iraq War, I saw it on TV. Sadaam sent something in all those trucks for safe keeping??

I was upset when elder Pres Bush had a parade and claimed we won in Iraq, and I told a friend...we will have to go back! Premature. I agree with what you have said, and I haven’t tried to discuss it on FR.... Nice to see facts and not emotional drama! I also saw Pres Bush in 2006 state in a speech that the next President would need to leave a substantial force in Iraq, or it would create a vacuum, which would be filled by a caliphate. That speech exists!

[Ambrosia]

Please let me add, I do not have the respect for G.W. Bush the way I had it during his Presidency. The influence of NWO on that family has created a different way of thinking. It was disappointing to see how Bill Clinton has infiltrated that family. I was never a fan of Jeb Bush.

G.W.’s Christianity does not come thru to me the way it did during his time in office....not sure why! Maybe the constant media attacks or pressure caused him to change his mind about some things....sad.

[thoughtomator]

Dude, this is straight out of the globalist propaganda factory... don’t you know what Foreign Policy magazine is?

It’s a big time CFR publication founded and edited by a big time Clintonite.

The fact that they’re trying to debunk alleged myths ought to tell you that there’s more truth behind those alleged myths than they ever want you to know.

[Lorianne]

Why were we there in the first place?

To protect one group of Muslims from another group of Muslims. And it has been the same ever since.

Neither group of Muslims is ever grateful for us helping them over the other group of Muslims. They hate us all the same after we do their bidding for them.

Why do we need to do that?

[shhrubbery!]

Disagree. I believe that Iraq, by 2007-8, stood a good chance of becoming a functioning democracy.

Of course that chance has now been shot to hell by the destruction deliberately inflicted by Obama, who was determined to make "Bush's war" a failure. Obama, infatuated with himself (and under the illusion that all historians would always be as gullible as the Nobel Committee), thought that his base political motives for destroying Iraq would never be exposed. But it looks as if he is already being proved wrong on that assessment.

And btw, I still respect Dick Cheney, and disagree with your harsh words.

[Alberta's Child]

I predicted exactly that scenario before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was wrong about the timing, though (I thought the political winds would cost Bush in the 2004 election).

I didn't predict it because I expected the media to lead a political uprising against Bush. I figured the media would simply jump off the bandwagon once events in Iraq didn't turn out as those in Washington were predicting.

[Alberta's Child]

I believe that Iraq, by 2007-8, stood a good chance of becoming a functioning democracy.

What was the basis of that assessment? How many "functioning democracies" did you see over there in any of those Islamic countries before 2007?

[Alberta's Child]

And btw, I still respect Dick Cheney, and disagree with your harsh words.

That's your prerogative. I'll never respect that guy. And I suspect most Americans don't, either. I would hope that the days of draft-dodgers sending U.S. soldiers to fight wars in Third World sh!t-holes are over.