« Up yours, fishwife! | Main | Exposed »
November 07, 2006
Reassessments
It's not phrased as clearly as it might be, but Simon Jenkins is on to something here:
…I find it eerie to witness so complete an about-turn in a general consensus within the world's most potent global policeman [i.e., the US on Iraq]. After all, the only thing that has changed in Iraq is that the relentless spin, that all was fine, has been proved wrong. American troops have taken a pounding and sense defeat, They have not changed their objective, nor their strategy for attaining it.
The fact that the going has gotten tough should not affect the argument for becoming involved in the first place. Or is something even more dangerous than invading Iraq now taking place? Americans are ceasing to think clearly about what they do, and becoming reactive purely to victory or defeat. When they face defeat they maintain that victory was not their intention from the start.
Two erstwhile war supporters among Canada's punditocracy recently published their post-mortems on Iraq. Jonathan Kay threw in the towel, while Andrew Coyne dug his heels in and employed a standard defence — he separated the war from its justifications. "To say that the invasion was a mistake," said Coyne, "requires us to believe that because Saddam had not rebuilt his WMD capacity at the time, he never would."
This argument has always done my head in. To say (hypothetically, of course) that downing 14 pints last Saturday night was a mistake requires us to believe that I wouldn't have accidentally burned the house down had I not gone out, or been mowed down by a bus on my way back from a movie. This is stretching a point, obviously, but you can use this sort of logic to extricate yourself from every single mistake you ever made or supported.
The US and UK went to Iraq because, they said, Saddam had WMDs. He didn't. Ergo, it says here, the invasion was a mistake before it even began. Can a war be considered successful if it doesn't achieve its primary goal? I wouldn't have thought so. So I wouldn't have thought an invasion could be considered successful when its primary target turned out not even to exist.
Either Bush and Blair lied or they were victims of a spectacular intelligence failure. This is an odd platform on which to even want success, let alone claim it. That's not to say that any and all invasions of Iraq would have been in error — just the one that actually happened, which is what I've always said. It makes absolutely no sense to me that someone could support invading a sovereign nation on fraudulent grounds and then subsequently claim anything better than failure, especially when that nation is the smoking crater that is Iraq circa November 2006.
Back across the Atlantic, Boris Johnson has been nothing if not forthright in his self-evaluation on the Iraq file:
With no protection except for Isaac, my interpreter, I went to the Iraqi foreign ministry, and found the place deserted. The windows were broken, and every piece of computer equipment had been looted. As I was staring at the fire-blackened walls a Humvee came through the gates. A pair of large GIs got out and asked me my business. I explained that I was representing the people of South Oxfordshire and Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph.
That didn't cut much ice. Then I noticed a figure begin to unpack his giraffe-like limbs from the shady interior of the Humvee. He was one of those quiet Americans that you sometimes meet in odd places.
He was grizzled and in his mid-50s and with a lantern jaw, and unlike every other US soldier I'd met he had neither his name nor his blood group stitched on his person. I grasped at once that this quiet American was no soldier. He had that Brahmin air, a bit Ivy League, a touch of JK Galbraith. Yes, folks, he was some kind of spook.
I remember how he walked slowly towards the shattered foreign ministry building, stroking his chin. Then he walked back towards us, and posed a remarkable question. "Have you, uh, seen anyone here?" he asked.
Nope, we said. All quiet here, we said. Quiet as the grave.
"Uhuh," he said, and started to get back in the Humvee. And then I blurted my own question: "But who are you?" I asked. "Oh, let's just say I work for the US government," he sighed. "I was just wondering if anyone was going to show up for work," he said. "That's all."
And that, of course, was the beginning of the disaster.
That's the other side of this unpleasant equation — even if there had been WMDs, it still almost certainly would have gone to shit — and Johnson has no time for Monday-morning quarterbacking on those grounds:
It is now commonplace for people like me, who supported the war, to say that we "did the right thing" but that it had mysteriously "turned out wrong". This is intellectually vacuous. It is like saying British strategy for July 1, 1916 was perfect, but let down by faulty execution. The thing was a disaster from the moment we invaded…
When you're attacked or directly threatened, there's no need to agonize over this stuff. But the US wasn't attacked by Iraq, and as it turned out it wasn't directly threatened by Iraq either. If it were up to me these circumstances would result in a redoubling of efforts to save Iraq from civil war and its destabilizing effects on the region, but the American and British public appear too war-weary to allow that to happen. That's just one more unfortunate circumstance that should have been anticipated when this war was being planned.
Posted by Chris Selley at November 7, 2006 11:37 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tartcider.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/565
Comments
If it were up to me these circumstances would result in a redoubling of efforts to save Iraq from civil war and its destabilizing effects on the region, but the American and British public appear too war-weary to allow that to happen.
My own feelings are very similar. However, I think that time may well have passed.
Posted by: KevinG ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.tartcider.com/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 9, 2006 10:20 AM
The US and UK went to Iraq because, they said, Saddam had WMDs. He didn't. Ergo, it says here, the invasion was a mistake before it even began. Can a war be considered successful if it doesn't achieve its primary goal? I wouldn't have thought so. So I wouldn't have thought an invasion could be considered successful when its primary target turned out not even to exist.
They invaded Iraq for a variety of reasons, not just because they believed he had WMDs. The WMDs were not the target, the regime was. Its gone, therefore the invasion was a success.
In addition, the occupation of Iraq has provided us with definitive evidence that Iraq did not possess WMDs (though also with definitve proof that Saddam intended to reactivate his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were removed), therefore fulfilling a mission which the UN weapons inspectors were never able to accomplish due to Saddam's uncooperativness. Incidently, Blix found Iraq to be in material breach of UNSCR 1441, which threatened 'grave consequences' should that turn out to be the case.
As to Johnson's musings about disaster they are, well, vacuous. Its intellectually dishonest to declare the current situation a disaster without some point of reference. What was Iraq before the invasion? For the marsh Arabs for instance?
Posted by: Sean Pelette at November 10, 2006 12:42 AM
Chris:
This is one of your best posts. Sean appears to be one of the only people left (aside from Cheney) who thinks everything is going quite fine in Iraq. A few points on Sean's unbelievable post:
The U.S. invaded Iraq for a "variety of reasons" You must be referring to all the justifications offered after no WMDs were found. Do you forget a little presentation made by Colin Powell before the U.N.?
Hans Blix actually counseled to give weapon inspectors more time to do their work. The mere fact that Iraq was in violation of UNSCR 1441 did not give the U.S. authority to strike without another resolution.
As for your claim that at least we're sure now about the WMds....Well, that's rather like the police storming into a house in a rough neighborhood, breaking most everything inside and then saying, 'Ah, ha! At least we proved there is no crime here.'
No one liked Saddam but his regime was not a threat and there would have better ways to get rid of him. But as Chris so eloquently argues you can't use the WMds as a reason and then when they turn out not to be there still claim that you are 100% justified.
Your argument
Posted by: Milan at November 10, 2006 10:26 AM
Chris:
This is one of your best posts. Sean appears to be one of the only people left (aside from Cheney) who thinks everything is going quite fine in Iraq. A few points on Sean's unbelievable post:
The U.S. invaded Iraq for a "variety of reasons" You must be referring to all the justifications offered after no WMDs were found. Do you forget a little presentation made by Colin Powell before the U.N.?
Hans Blix actually counseled to give weapon inspectors more time to do their work. The mere fact that Iraq was in violation of UNSCR 1441 did not give the U.S. authority to strike without another resolution.
As for your claim that at least we're sure now about the WMds....Well, that's rather like the police storming into a house in a rough neighborhood, breaking most everything inside and then saying, 'Ah, ha! At least we proved there is no crime here.'
No one liked Saddam but his regime was not a threat and there would have better ways to get rid of him. But as Chris so eloquently argues you can't use the WMds as a reason and then when they turn out not to be there still claim that you are 100% justified.
Posted by: Milan at November 10, 2006 10:27 AM
The United States, an outpost of Israel, went to war to protect Israel.
Posted by: Olga at November 14, 2006 04:17 PM