Douglas J. Feith has a piece in the Wall Street Journal on “How Bush Sold the War,” which argues that President Bush’s focus on promoting democracy in Iraq has been a grave error:
In the fall of 2003, a few months after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, U.S. officials began to despair of finding stockpiles of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The resulting embarrassment caused a radical shift in administration rhetoric about the war in Iraq.
President Bush no longer stressed Saddam’s record or the threats from the Baathist regime as reasons for going to war. Rather, from that point forward, he focused almost exclusively on the larger aim of promoting democracy. This new focus compounded the damage to the president’s credibility that had already been caused by the CIA’s errors on Iraqi WMD. The president was seen as distancing himself from the actual case he had made for removing the Iraqi regime from power.
NRO’s Andy McCarthy unsurprisingly chimed in with his oft-repeated assertion that “the reason we deposed Saddam was to eliminate a national security threat not to establish Iraqi democracy” and “that democracy-promotion is a dangerously counterproductive distraction.” NRO’s Byron York largely agreed, while noting that “it’s hard to argue that the war was really about eliminating a security threat, and not about WMD. Iraq was thought to be a security threat because of its alleged stockpiles of WMD, and Feith’s reasons for the war make that clear.” McCarthy replied, arguing that:
Feeling itself burned on the WMD front, the administration decided it was a political loser to revisit the multi-layered rationale for the Iraq invasion. Thus it talked about democracy-promotion and refused to engage with critics who assiduously discredited the war as illegitimate. This was a triple-disaster in that (a) Americans don’t care whether Iraq becomes a democracy, (b) since building democracy in an Islamic society is, to put it mildly, difficult, we were sure to suffer set-backs which would enrage the public while occasional successes (like elections) would do little to enthuse the public, and (c) without a coherent tie-in between Iraq operations and the suppression of jihadist terror (which Americans do care about), public support for the war was bound to plummet  and without public support, the forces on the Left that want the U.S. to lose the war would have an increasingly strong hand.
McCarthy and Feith are partially correct, in that the Administration’s approach allowed the Left to engage in some rather extreme historical revisionism, even as it accused Bush of engaging in the same. And McCarthy’s other political points have some validity.
Where the Feith-McCarthy thesis fails, however, is in ignoring that promoting democracy was part of the post-9/11 Bush doctrine before the US set foot in Iraq (see, e.g., here, here, here and here) — and was criticized at the time by people like Josh Marshall. And while Marshall’s claim that this was a “secret” was (and is) silly, it certainly could be argued that the Bush Administration would have benefitted by stressing it more — and more often from the outset. The Feith-McCarthy thesis also pays little heed to a major lesson of the 20th century — that regime change can leave a vacuum that can be filled by another threat. Nor does it consider that promoting democracy in the Mideast (though not always by the use of force, obviously) is in the medium and long run one of the more practical policies that could be adopted to address the unique threat posed by non-state terror networks.
Ultimately, Jonah Goldberg gets closest to the mark in arguing that the Bush Administration’s big mistake in this regard was the obsession with boiling the war down to one issue, and that “freedom (manifested ultimately as democracy) must be part of any major undertaking of this kind of magnitude.”
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Well duh we’re gonna help them become democratic. Autocratic regimes are an inherent national security risk. Freedom is more better I think. But Jonah needs to get with the program or his limp-wristed NRO buddies are gonna be mean to him. And then the fat chick will pile on.
I realize history isn’t a strong point for most of these folks, but do they not remember Afghanistan?
We never seem to remember anything anymore. “We’ll never have another Veitnam” mantra was great while it lasted. “Here’s to the new boss, same as the old boss”.
I agree, actually. What’s the point of investing our “blood and treasure” to liberate a country if we’re just going to hand it over to another dictator?
And I thought the Left had a moral-like objection to “Our Bastard”-ism, anyway.
Most of the Iraq war critics in the nutroots were paying more attention to the problems of pimples, pubert, and proms than foreign policy in the 1990’s.
Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger gave a speech at Stanford University on December 8, 1998 that emphasized the fact that our national security interests in Iraq were broader than WMD’s.
Here are some key quotes:
” I want to talk about another aspect of our Middle East policy today —
our effort to combat the threat to peace still posed by Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq. And I want to put that discussion in a broader
regional context.
America’s most vital national interest in dealing with Iraq is
straightforward: to prevent Saddam from rebuilding his military
capability, including weapons of mass destruction, and from using that
arsenal to move against his neighbors or his own people. But we must
also keep in mind that Saddam’s continued reign of terror inside Iraq
and intimidation outside Iraq have broader implications for all our
interests in region. The future of Iraq will affect the way in which
the Middle East and the Arab world in particular evolve in the next
decade and beyond — and our policy must take that into account.”
“Keep in mind that Saddam’s Iraq was traditionally the region’s leading
opponent of compromise with Israel. It led the effort to quarantine
Sadat’s Egypt after Camp David, and it prided itself on being the only
Arab country that could rain down fire on the Israeli people.
But when Saddam was defeated by a coalition of Americans, Europeans
and Arabs fighting together, many old preconceptions about Middle East
politics were shattered. The Madrid peace conference soon followed,
and from that the whole series of events that led to the Rabin-Arafat
hand shake and more important, to the countless handshakes among ordinary
people that have followed.
The peace process has moved forward in part because, ever since the
Gulf War, the immediate military threat Saddam poses has been
contained — albeit at a substantial price. But even a contained
Saddam is harmful to stability and to positive change in the region.
Conversely, a constructive Iraq would help change the equation in the
region.”
More Berger quotes from the speech noted above:
“That is not because Saddam is a true believer in any radical,
extremist vision. The only cause Saddam believes in is his own
survival and ambition. And more Arabs see through him today than ever
before. But by manipulating the suffering he himself has inflicted on
Iraqis, and invoking the rhetoric of Arab solidarity, he has remained
a convenient symbol for those who seek to exploit the sense of
aggrievement, frustration and defeat that is still so powerful in much
of the Arab world. Fundamentalists like Osama Bin Laden may be utterly
different from Saddam, yet they can still take advantage of his
conflict with the world to win recruits for their cause.
As long as Saddam remains in power and in confrontation with the
world, the positive evolution we and so many would like to see in the
Middle East is less likely to occur. His Iraq remains a source of
potential conflict in the region, a source of inspiration for those
who equate violence with power and compromise with surrender, a source
of uncertainty for those who would like to see a stable region in
which to invest.
Change inside Iraq is necessary not least because it would help free
the Middle East from its preoccupation with security and struggle and
survival, and make it easier for its people to focus their energies on
commerce and cooperation.
For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based
on the tangible threat Saddam poses to our security. That threat is
clear. Saddam’s history of aggression, and his recent record of
deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive
for regional domination if he had the chance. Year after year, in
conflict after conflict, Saddam has proven that he seeks weapons,
including weapons of mass destruction, in order to use them.
Our strategy for meeting this threat has been one of containment…”
“Through constant confrontation, our policy of containing Iraq has been
successful. But that does not mean that by itself it is sustainable
over the long run.
It is, first of all, a costly policy, in economic and strategic terms.
The pattern we have seen over the last few years, of Iraqi defiance,
followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi
capitulation, leaves the international community vulnerable to
manipulation by Saddam. Because we continue to block his advances,
“cheat and retreat” leaves him no better off in the end. But we cannot
tolerate it endlessly, either.
The longer this standoff continues, the harder it will be to maintain
the international support we have built for our policy. Even this
toughest of all sanctions regimes in history becomes harder to sustain
over time. In the meantime, the Iraqi people will live in a murderous
and corrupt police state, with no prospect for a normal life, as long as
their country is Saddam’s preserve.
Perhaps most fundamentally, Saddam’s continued misrule of Iraq is
harmful to the Middle East as a whole. It is partly responsible for
the pervasive sense of insecurity that prevents the region from
evolving in a positive way.”
Sorry for the run-on comment, but here is how Berger concluded (in 1998):
“In his farewell speech to the State Department, Secretary Christopher
said something that applies well to the challenge we face in Iraq, and
in the Middle East as a whole: “When we are confronted by the
conflicts and tragedies of a still dangerous world,” he observed, “we
can respond in one of three ways. We can choose the easy way, taking
satisfaction … in lashing out…. Or we can choose to walk away and
wash our hands. Or, we can make the choice to persevere until a
solution is found.” That is the choice, he said, that the people who
defend our country’s interests overseas make day in and day out.
It is the choice we should make in seeking a better future for Iraq,
with patience and resolve, with determination to use effective force
if necessary, and with confidence that our goals will be met.”
Aldo:
That was interesting. It reminds me of remarks made by Bill Richardson back in 1998, connecting Saddam to terrorism. And then in Feb. 2000 Zinni went before Congress and said that the greatest threat facing the United States was Saddam Hussein.
How soon they forget.
As for the gist of this whole debate: We are Americans. What were we supposed to do, get rid of one dictator and replace him with another? Would Americans have gone for that? I don’t think so.
The thing that first started pissing me off about Bush was his willingness to take a politically disingenuous shot to the head every five minutes, and never even try to explain his reasoning, or hit back with a vengeance. I agreed with him (and still do) that no amount of talk was going to change the Mid-East. There had to be an earth shaking fundamental change somewhere over there, and Iraq seemed to be the ripest target.
For Bush to not even try to explain his doctrine, and let his critics beat him to a bloody pulp and not even make a peep, used to raise my blood pressure – and still does. I actually used to scream at my YV when he had a chance to do so, and didn’t: “What the Hell is wrong with you?” How many fighters go into the ring at a prize fight and not bother to raise their arms from their sides? This was, and is, Bush’s fatal weakness, and a sure fire way to get your ass kicked.
It’s too late now, because Bush has let his enemies define him as a stupid moron. And when he does give his namby-pamby talks to the nation, he is hooted down by the strongest arm of the Democratic party – the drive-by media. And by never passionately fighting back, he has assured that 80% of the country is hooting with them. They honestly believe that Bush is stupid. And in a way, I am beginning to agree, but for a totally different reason.
Just writing about it is pissing me off.
Too bad. We all had such high hopes for him…
Lost Dog,
It is pathetic when the best defense I’ve ever read of Bush’s Iraq reasoning was articulated by Sandy Berger back in 1998 when Berger was still Clinton’s National Security Advisor.
Well, when you have Sen Chuck Schumer and the gang doing everything possible to secure America’s defeat all for pleasure of obtaining absolute power then stuff spoken by former National Security Advisor to former President Clinton is flushed down the toilet because you know, everyone knew that Saddam provided rivers of chocolate and flying kites the moment President Bush took his Constitutional oath to defend America.
Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is filling up the Congress with Conservative ‘blue-blood’ Democrats who are staunch politicians against illegal immigration.
I want some PIE please!
TLD
Oration is not one of Bush’s strong suits, but I wonder if there is anything that anyone could have been said that could compete with the open animosity of the press, and the bloodthirsty savagery of a dedicated enemy.
While the Bush administration may be justly faulted for not mounting a strong enough defense of policy (policy with which 70% of the populace agreed at the time), will the perfidy of the opposition ever be justly compensated? Think how, for instance, those O so civilized Nederlanders dealt with their collaborators post-liberation 1945.
Bush is my favorite. People who listen to the news on tv and like in magazines and newspapers and stuff can’t be held accountable for thinking stupid things.
It was a mistake to leave Hussein in power after the Gulf War. We left him nursing a grudge and thinking we lacked resolve.
The lost dog:
The best defense I ever heard for Bush’s policy was from Bush himself. He has stated time and again what he thought about Saddam and Iraq. For instance has far back as 2002 in front of the General Assembly at the UN he made one of his best speeches on the subject. It is not his fault if people refuse to listen or pay attention.
Well I remember a lot of chest pounding from the Democrats a decade ago, so they do not need to be fluttering their eyelashes and acting all aghast today that there was a war.
And Bush did make his case and it made sense to people for as long as they wanted it to. And then they got tired and just wanted it all to go away. Bush could not just walk away. He did not have that luxury.
And here is the Resolution signed by the Senate giving Bush the authority to go to war. Needless to say Obama did not sign it, he was not even in the Senate at the time.
I can remember a lot of people who thought Reagan was stupid or senile or both. He wasn’t, but that was how a lot of people saw him 20 years ago.
Oration is not one of Bush’s strong suits, but I wonder if there is anything that anyone could have been said that could compete with the open animosity of the press,
They were questioning authority, and I’m sure that they will be just as adversarial once we have an Obama administration and Democrat-controlled congress.
I mean, just look at the even-handed coverage of the campaign so far…
never mind.
If Bush didn’t have the chops to fight back verbally, he could have appointed some bulldogs from his staff (besides the WH press secretary) or from the Senate or House or anywhere else to play Aaron to his Moses (in the spokesperson sense, ya leftie trolls; I’m not attributing prophet-like powers to the current CiC. Which you would know if you were capable of properly interpreting rhetorical tropes.)
Terrye,
I heard all of it, and when he did speak up, I thought it was great. But he was being mercilessly pounded every single day, and he never called his attackers on the lies they were telling, and the hate with which they spoke. Maybe Bush needs to find a “prick school” (as do I), but he never exposed his attackers for what they were – cheap, lying 60’s politicos who will destroy even our constitution for their own ends. And they kicked his ass.
And speaking up once or twice a month when you are getting pounded every single day by a juggernaut is no way to win the war of ideas.
Reagan knew how to get around the press, and how to confront them without rancor. But Bush, for the most part, sat mute.
I think what Bush did (and is doing) in Iraq is the only hope we have of changing the dynamic in the Mid=East and ending the idiocy of Arab society and terrorism, and I still stand four square behind him. It just upsets me that Bush wasn’t a lot more aggressive in defending and explaining himself. He let the left run their steam roller all over him.
A very bad way to have your policies accepted if you are the President.
I think maybe it would help everyone to see the war from the perspective of “The Pantagon’s New Map”. (Buy the book and the map, Barnett could doubtless use the money.)
Slowly, but surely, the US is dragging the rest of the world into seeing the sovreign nation as being a conditional construct. As long as a country is justly ruled, safe, fed, and doesn’t threaten others, its rulers have noting to fear. Otherwise, well, wait for the GBU-15s, and the reconstruction force.
Now, mind you, the Bush adminstration hasn’t done a good job of selling this idea, but the needs of war are forcing the Pentagon, at least, to go this way. America is committed, and muslims are gradually beginning to apprehend the catastrophe of 9/11.
Islam will control itself. We will have a more-connected world. We just ended an American century, precursor to an American millenium.
I am eternally optimistic about this country, and its influence.
Hi. Patrick,
I would tend to agree with you, except for the fact that it increasingly looks like the far left is about to wrench this country away from the constraints of the conservatives (of which I can hardly see any, anymore) and the constitution. And the Republicans (and I DO say this quite bitterly), are accepting the left’s ideas with the caveat that they can modify them just enough to declare victory.
Instead of fighting the madness of the left, the Republicans are saying: “OK. You win! Just give us a few scraps so we can save face. After that, we can all lick your butts, and get on board with plunging this country into socialism”.
The conservatives have no leadership in sight, and as far as I am concerned, we are seeing a rapidly unfolding disaster for we as citizens AND for the nation. What the government now demands of it’s “subjects” is INSANE to any rational and logical human being.
The children are winning…
I am really surprised at how successful the left has been at twisting such recent events into such a lie. Everyone thinks it was about WMD, even people who know better now, it astonishes me how well their efforts to lie have worked.
The lost Dog:
Are you kidding? For years we heard about how terrible Saddam was. During the Clinton administration hardly a month went by without Bill lobbing a cruise missile at Iraq. In 1998 when our embassies were bombed in Africa, the Clinton administration made sure that Saddam was named in the indictment.
Now it is as if Bill and Saddam were buddies, they got together and played golf on the weekends and then low and behold this bad man named Bush came out of the land of Mordor {aka Texas} and came up with all this crazy stuff about wmd and terrorism and stuff.
The very fact that Bush would have say it over and over and over again while the not so loyal opposition was allowed to revise history tells you something about what the man was up against.
When he got pissed and he did, they called it defensive. When he tried to point out that he used the same intel everyone else did, they called him a liar.
No, I do not blame Bush for being a basically decent man in an impossible situation.
Christopher:
Same here.
Patrick,
Barnett’s sequel is also interesting, though I don’t think we’re currently headed toward an alliance with Iran at the moment.
Indeed, O!’s generally incoherent foreign policy is all the more baffling, given that he could have cribbed some from Barnett.
Hi all,
I’ve not read the sequel to TPNM – Sci-Fi keeps getting in the way. Well, actually, I’m curently reading Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy”. It was on sale at Border’s for $9.99, and I buy classics by the pound – or whatever the current Avoirdupoid measure may be. Versts, I’ll warrant. (Yes, ;^))
I have fair amount of faith in the ability of our politicians to keep the strategic game going, even if they fail tactically, on occasion.
So, even though the Bush Administration has failed utterly to sell a strategic vision to the public, I think it’s well-understood on Capitol Hill where we’re going for the next 50 years or so, even if the Kossacks don’t like it. Sure, we’ll sell Pakistan to its own destruction (for example), but the overall goal will be to confine Islam to stew in its juices until it sues for peace, about 50 years out.
We will win, have no fear.
We’re Americans, dammit, winning is what we do.
Patrick
—
No, I do not blame Bush for being a basically decent man in an impossible situation.
Hear hear!
And my money is on W not pulling a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton in his retiring years.
No, Bush will go back to his ranch and try to forget the last 8 years. I think.
You know, I have thought about all this quite a bit and I have wondered how much of it has to do with the shock of 9/11 itself and then the antiAmericanism that was in such display in Europe and elsewhere. Needless to say our very own Left was appreciative of the help it got from the international Left…but I have wondered how much of all this is a defense mechanism of sorts. Americans are thinking that if we just vote for the kind of people they want us to vote for, then everything will be okay. We can go back to the 90s. It is easier to blame Bush than it to face the harsh realities of the world.
Terrye,
If it is W’s fault, the problem solves itself.
If it is al-Qaeda’s fault, we might have to do something.
Do you think, Terrye, that perhaps we are seeing the acme of progressive liberalism? That it is a long slide into the backwater of history from here? This is just my observation, but I get the impression that the DUs and the Daily Kos are an extremely small part of our political culture. That the adherence of liberal viewpoints by a large part of our society is a matter of how information is disseminated, not a moral commitment to that point of view.
Fear Terrye,
I’m having trouble figuring out the point(s) you may want to make. That said, let me tell you: Europeans hate Americans. I grew up American in Europe, and I know this from hard experience.
Our political left is an import from Europe. It hates us on a European basis: It envies the successful parvenu and wants it taken down. In fact, it hates success in general and wants to see humanity generally miserable.
The less contact we have with European culture and philosophy, the better off we’ll be. They’re sick, enervated, and secadent; nothing an energetic America should heed.
Patrick
—
“Dear”
Jeezus.
I buy classics by the pound
Nothing by Bertrand Russel is a classic.
I agree President Bush could have done a much better job as PR head and cheerleader, but I also agree he was up against nearly impossible odds, an incredibly hostile press and hateful power-lusting members of the opposition party. No one could have chewed through that successfully, Reagan or not.
All these themes were part of the Iraq War resolution that authorized the war, as was human rights issues raised in at least one UN resolution. The idea of promoting just one theme has been shown to be perilous, but given the ADD of the public and the partisan and plain-old ideology opportunism, the juggling act is made even more difficult.
Meanwhile the problems in places like Durfur, coupled with the linguistic gymnastics of the EU to avoid the use of the word “genocide” in order to avoid actually having to do anything, made using the human rights theme impossible to play because of the limited resources that even a super power has to deal with.
“Nothing by Bertrand Russel is a classic.”
Well, that’s like, just your opinion, man.
Yes, I will be going back to Lebowskifest. It’s the nihilist gum that draws me.
Hindsight is more the 20/20 in this case. There were many reasons to invade Iraq; the real reason was to challenge the Wahhabis in a site less
remote than Afghanistan; ultimately creating a base for further operations there. Because of the Gulf War precedent; we had to do at least the
pretense of a presentation to the General Assembly; More than half of those regimes achieved power through the use of terrorism; a smaller subset
are undemocratic. However, the WMD angle had the benefit of being confirmed by security services from French DGSE to Jordanian Mukharabat;
so it was the most obvious tack to choose.
Patrick
Was a that Freudian slip? Yes, fear me for I am a scary person. I am sorry if you do not get my point, I try to be clear. Not all Europeans hate America, of course the ones that do not hate America often become Americans.
My point is that seeing all that hate on TV was a slap in the face to Americans. Especially after seeing the WTC collapse into a pile of rubble. Like Karl said, blame Bush and the problem solves itself. We can go back to pretending the world is not full of mass murdering crazy people.
Dear Terrye,
What, and forget to ask ourselves “Why do they hate us?”
I think not,
Patrick
—
Patrick:
I don’t think that question will be coming up again.
Terrye and everyone else,
I agree that Bush was up against almost impossible odds, but he had NO chance of winning without throwing a punch or three of his own. Either himself or his surrogates.
The outrageous lies and distortions of the left looneys should have been met with Bush in boxing regalia and throwing hay makers. Bush never called these people liars and propagandists, which is exactly what they were (are). I’m sorry, but as timid as I am, I would have been so pissed off, that I would have HAD to counter these absolutely false attacks. And not just Bush, but, as suggested before, he needed (needs) some bulldogs on his team, but was (is) too decent, and trusting of the fact that the American people are, in the end, decent.
They probably are, but the difference between real decency, and what the left has taught as “decency” for the last forty years is the difference between night and day. Decency and shame have ceased to exist on the left – which is very much to their advantage.
Lying? Stealing? Cheating? Beating some one’s head in? That’s OK. It’s not YOUR fault. It’s because the Republicans have been SO FUCKING MEAN THAT YOU JUST CAN’T HELP YOURSELF!!
I’m sorry, because I think Bush has been crushed by a bunch of socialist morons who say “Fuck the Constitution”, and if I was in his position, i would have sent the best head-fuckers I could find onto the battlefield. And, like Reagan, I am a pretty good head-fucker myself. All it takes is a plan and a lot of patience.
When the press hates you, and pummels you mercilessly every day as a liar and too stupid to live, it is time to send out the major head-fuckers. I think Bush’s foreign policy is right on (not so much his domestic policy), but you can’t throw one punch per round and not expect to have your head caved in.
Decency is my goal too, but when you are up against savages that laugh at your “decency” and lie day after day about you, you need to fight back. History and God may see George Bush as a very good president, but I see him as a wuss, who is too decent to understand that he has had his head handed to him on a platter by a bunch of lying, low-life, power hungry, stupid power freak shit-heads – who, just incidentally – hate America, and The very constitution that has made it great..
Bush is not good at standing up to head-fuckers like the left, and it is a pity, because we are now probably looking at the stupidest president of all time (who I am pretty much convinced is Soros’ puppet).
How could Obama raise a record amount of money, mostly through the internet, and still not be blowing Hillary away?
Something stinks to high heaven here.
If I had the money Soros has, I would investigate each and every one of Obama’s internet contributions. His won-lost record, and popular vote percentage just don’t add up to the amount of money he is raising. How much easier would stealth be on the internet, where contributions come in one at a time, instead of in bundles?
Could it be that Obama is Pinocchio? And could it be his puppet master is Pepino (or whoever. It’s been a long time)? The more I hear Obama speak, the less I think of his intellectual powers. If he was a Republican, the press would have turned him into puree long before now, instead of rigging zippers to their lips.
Something stinks in Denmark when Soros can politically scare the crap out of any Democrat who challenges him…
Problem is, TLD, that the one time a Bush spokesman dipped a toe into the “careful what you’re saying out there” water — even including a Republican in the targets of the comments — the left went absolutely bonkers. If a mild statement throws people into a tizzy, I can understand why they’d be wary of tackling the liars head-on.
Not saying it shouldn’t have been done, just saying I can understand why they were gun shy.
I’d like to throw in that Bush embraces a respect for the office of POTUS and that prohibits him from engaging directly those who do not. Jimmy and Bill on the other hand….
The lost Dog:
Fine, but what do you do with guys like Scott McClellan?