SubscribeOne might have thought, therefore, that Bush and Blair's decision to put an end at last to this intolerable state of affairs would be hailed, not just as a belated vindication of long-ignored U.N. resolutions but as some corrective to the decade of shame and inaction that had just passed in Bosnia and Rwanda. But such is not the case. An apparent consensus exists, among millions of people in Europe and America, that the whole operation for the demilitarization of Iraq, and the salvage of its traumatized society, was at best a false pretense and at worst an unprovoked aggression. How can this possibly be?How can we take seriously someone who asks that question with the niave light of a liar in their eyes? Especially after the world so roundly supported the invasion of Afghanistan? I guess if you don't see the world through Hitch's eyes, no matter how many valid objections you raise, you're a deluded fool.
When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened: we have lost all the gains we made over the past 30 years. It's a big disappointment.- Safia Taleb al-Souhail
But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:I thought you were writing about Iraq, Hitch. Talibanism was defeated by wholly a different war, and most who opposed Iraq did not oppose the Afghanistan war. As for Baathism, well, I don't even know what this means. Baathism started as a pan-Arab movement attempting to draw together the interests of the Arab world; they wanted to create a potent regional counterforce to Western imperialism. But funny thing happened in Iraq and Syria, which are the only places this form of pan-Arabism took shape (Nasser's was a wholly different animal); the parties were hijacked by Assad and Hussein to become vehicles of their autocracy. Insofar as this claim means anything it is true in that the invasion crushed Saddam's regime. But that is hardly the end of the story.
(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism...
(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya...Qaddafi got exactly what he wanted out of his early-level WMD program: he cashed in the bargaining chip he created and got incentives, new relations, and a reintroduction to the global community. Hardly a capitulation. Oh yeah, who runs Libya now?
(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan...You have got to be kidding me. Khan's role in nuclear proliferation was well known prior to the war, and certainly by the CIA probably as far back as 1994.
(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue...And your evidence for that, Mr. Hitchens? What reforms have been undertaken?
(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism...Ok, let's say this is true. This is a positive effect of the war? How did the war change this? In what world would this have been different?
(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat......or arms inspectors sent by your government? Oh, yeah, you wouldn't let those guys go in. But it's a good thing we now know for sure that there were NO weapons of mass destruction.
7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states...As noted above, this is not true. There were no gains for the Kurds by the war. They had everything they have now before, and were better off then, most likely.
(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy......and the evidence for this is...what? The only possible case one could make for this claim is in Lebanon, and it seems pretty clear to me that Syria left not because they were afraid of further US action (indeed, we're so overstretched now militarily that I don't think we pose a credible deterrent to ANY rogue regime in the region) but because of a well orchestrated and peaceful series of demonstrations from the Lebanese people. I would state this point falls firmly into "fantasyland."
(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number...I suppose if you count those that were successfully recruited as a result of our Iraqi adventures in that total, there is a kernel of truth here. But as far as "greatly enlarging this number" it's pretty clear to me that we are giving the al-Qaida brand of terrorists their best PR tool since, well, the first Iraq war and the fact that our troops never left Saudi Arabia in the first place.
(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat...Ah, yes. The self-fulfilling prophecy. If you make war, you will need hardened warriors. But are there enough? I don't think we can chew what we have bitten off now. I wonder what sort of delusion is required to convince oneself that we are in a good or advantageous position now. And we have decades, if not centuries, of blowback to look forward to. But hey, that might fall into "negative accounting," which Hitchens seems patently incapable of even considering.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."Support efforts to remove the regime," not "remove the regime." "Promote the emergence of a democratic government," not "install a democratic government." The act also says (my emphasis):
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.Section 4(a)(2) refers to providing "defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training" to Iraqi democratic opposition organizations, not US combat troops.
The obvious target was Afghanistan because of the open and notorious ties to al Qaeda.
But it also served as a pretext to examine other rogue states which harbored terrorists and threatened peace.
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
...
The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.
...
But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.
I might argue that it is disingenuous for you to cover your ears and stomp your feet and say that we are only allowed to anaylze this through the premise of the WMD argument.
And I vow to do everything in mt power to assure that President Bush is followed by another President and administration that continues his smart, courageous policies towards the Middle East and terrorism.
If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.
And semmi, thank you for posting this, as it must annoy most of Metafilter--for the better.
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
« Older Pandora.... | The wonderful architecture blo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:57 AM on August 30, 2005