Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Wednesday March 19, 2008
Category: IraqIraq War, five years on
Five years ago tonight, the United States launched its war on Iraq. Where were you when it started? Me, I was having a drink with a friend in a Manhattan bar, across from Bloomingdales. We watched the first images of shock and awe, finished our drinks and went our separate ways. I went home to Brooklyn, to my empty apartment. I'd already sent Julie and Matthew down to Texas to be with her family. The atmosphere in NYC was very, very tense, with security personnel everywhere on the street. It was anticipated that there would be more terror attacks once the war was launched. That, thank God, never happened. In three weeks, I would leave NYC permanently for Dallas to join Julie and Matthew, and start a new phase of our lives.
Five years ago I, a supporter of the war, literally did not imagine that we would be where we are today. Others did, of course, but we didn't listen to them. I believe we Americans have seen, and many of us (including you, Sen. Clinton) helped to bring about, the worst US foreign policy disaster in our history. We never should have gone to war, and will be paying for this war in some way for decades. If the GOP retains the presidency this fall in spite of this war, and in spite of having chosen one of the biggest hawks in Washington as its nominee, we can call that conclusive evidence that the Lord God is, in fact, a Republican.
Well, look, we've all fought over this or that about Iraq policy over the years, and I don't want to start the same old combox fight over again today. What I'd like to do is ask you to reflect on the main lessons you personally have learned from the Iraq experience of the last five years. I would like to emphasize that I do not want this thread to turn contentious, and will unpublish any comments that unduly attack somebody else's comments. Rather, I want this to be a reflective thread. Please work hard to keep the tone calm, and avoid rhetorical bomb-throwing.
Here are the main things I've learned over the past five years. Some of them were new to me; others were things I already believed, or half-believed, but had confirmed in a particularly strong way:
+ The human capacity for self-deception is boundless. Beware emotion in political reasoning.+ Do not trust the government. Its leaders will lie, both to you and to themselves.
+ Culture precedes politics.
+ Liberal democracy is not universally the best way to govern societies, especially Islamic ones.
+ Having a strong military is no guarantee that you'll be a strong nation. America is much weaker than we think.
+ You cannot trust the Republican Party on foreign policy and national security. That's not to say you can trust the Democrats either.
+ It is easy to look at a leader who is blindly, foolishly arrogant, and think you're looking at confidence. It is easy to think yourself confident, but in fact be blindly, foolishly arrogant.
+ History matters. The temptation to think it doesn't is constant -- particularly among Americans, who are so ignorant of it, and who think we can defy its lessons.
Maybe I'll come up with some more throughout the day. Meanwhile, how about you? What have the past five years taught you? Remember: be reflective, not combative.
Filed Under: five-year anniversary, Iraq
posted by Rod Dreher @ 8:24am Permalink 
Email This 
Add to:
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Comments
Per Karen: "What you're missing (again, in 2003) is any actual evidence of A. Bush wanted a surge at that point and B. the Democrats would've prevented him from getting it."
What I actually said was this: "Did President Bush make mistakes? You bet; as soon as Saddam fell a 'Surge' should have begun, and damn the consequences and the Democrats and the New York Times."
We both know that my words can't be interpreted to mean that I said Bush should have surged in 2003. Saddam wasn't captured until sometime in December, 2003. It takes about a year from concept to all surge boots on the ground. That would bring us to late 2004.
But as early as 2002, when Sen. Lieberman introduced a proposal for a Homeland Security Dept. and finally gained the President's agreement, the Dems balked and delayed the legislation just to deny the president a victory. Bush was forced to retort even back then that "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people."
In May 2003, the largely ignored Democratic Leadership Council/Progressive Policy Institute (DLC), was concerned that the Democratic primary contenders were too far left. Front-runner Howard Dean, attracted Democratic support because of his anti-war views. The DLC warned that Dean represented the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." Wikipedia
According to the washingtonpost.com , "Bush and the Republicans used Iraq as a political cudgel in 2002 and 2004 [elections], portraying Democrats as too wishy-washy to stay the course, accusing them of coddling Saddam Hussein and emboldening terrorists." Does that sound like the President believed he didn't have to consider Democratic objections to something like a surge in 2004?
Moreover, Karen, I never said or even hinted that "B. the Democrats would've prevented him from getting it." All I meant was that, HAD HE PROPOSSED IT, they would have squealed loudly, even in 2004, because of their true colors and the coming election.
Did he want to propose a surge in 2004, who knows? All I said was that he erred in not doing so, despite the Democrat/NYT hissy fit that would have followed as sure as night follows day.
Posted by: Cleveland | March 24, 2008 8:48 PM
"What I actually said was this: "Did President Bush make mistakes? You bet; as soon as Saddam fell a 'Surge' should have begun, and damn the consequences and the Democrats and the New York Times."\
We both know that my words can't be interpreted to mean that I said Bush should have surged in 2003. Saddam wasn't captured until sometime in December, 2003. It takes about a year from concept to all surge boots on the ground. That would bring us to late 2004."
Nice weasel there.
Obviously, therefore, you can't prove that Bush even wanted one. Much less, back in 2003, the Democrats (or the NY Times) would've stopped him. And it might take a year to get it together, but that's all moot once its actually VOTED for.
And that vote would've taken place in 2003, when it was all very much supported by each group.
Secondly, a year and a half (and late 2004 would be that long)? Odd, didn't take that long for THIS surge to be put together.
"But as early as 2002, when Sen. Lieberman introduced a proposal for a Homeland Security Dept. and finally gained the President's agreement, the Dems balked and delayed the legislation just to deny the president a victory. Bush was forced to retort even back then that "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people."
So, a single proposal for HS Security is balked at, proposed by what was still, at that point, a Democrat, and is slammed by the idea that any resistance to the President is a threat to security, and he WINS.
This hardly proves your point. It would seem that even if the President DID encounter that resistance, all he would've had to have done at that point is go 'Boogey, boogey, soft on terrorism', and they, as they DID, would back down.
"In May 2003, the largely ignored Democratic Leadership Council/Progressive Policy Institute (DLC), was concerned that the Democratic primary contenders were too far left. Front-runner Howard Dean, attracted Democratic support because of his anti-war views. The DLC warned that Dean represented the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." Wikipedia
According to the washingtonpost.com , "Bush and the Republicans used Iraq as a political cudgel in 2002 and 2004 [elections], portraying Democrats as too wishy-washy to stay the course, accusing them of coddling Saddam Hussein and emboldening terrorists." Does that sound like the President believed he didn't have to consider Democratic objections to something like a surge in 2004?"
Umm.. sounds less like Bush needed the Democrats support for the Iraq War, and MORE like he used the Iraq War against the Democrats during the election. Which implies directly the reverse. You don't use a cudgel on people whose support you need.
"Moreover, Karen, I never said or even hinted that "B. the Democrats would've prevented him from getting it." All I meant was that, HAD HE PROPOSSED IT, they would have squealed loudly, even in 2004, because of their true colors and the coming election."
We were talking about in 2003, and even if it took a year (which I still think is pretty much a stretch, given we seemed to manage it in less than 2 months when we DID send a surge), the VOTE would've been in 2003.
Adn all you have is 'woulda'. The fact is, in the end, Bush never so much as HINTED at any surge being needed.
"Did he want to propose a surge in 2004, who knows? All I said was that he erred in not doing so, despite the Democrat/NYT hissy fit that would have followed as sure as night follows day."
And I say he never wanted one. And I'm supported by his own words, which never proposed other than the rosiest possible scenario after the fall of Saddam.
Posted by: Karen | March 24, 2008 11:02 PM
To stop you from misquoting me that Bush should have surged in 2003, I showed you my actual words, to which you replied, "Nice weasel there."
The thing I like best about debating an irrational person is that it feels good to finally stop.
Posted by: Cleveland | March 25, 2008 1:30 AM
You said the surge would take a year to put together, which would put the actual SURGE in 2004. But, given that it takes a year to enact, the VOTING for the surge would still take place in 2003.
I disagree with the timetable, given the surge we actually did took nowhere near that long, but its YOUR timetable.
And, therefore, the Democratic and the NY Times resistance would have to have occurred in 2003. (No point in resisting something you've already voted for, after all, after the fact.)
And there is NO indication that in May of 2003, more than a handful of Democrats (and a couple of Republicans) would've so much as said 'boo' to any proposed surge.
And the example you used of the opposition (such as it was) to the HS proposal belied your own point, given that it was easily overcome with just a couple of 'soft on terrorism' speeches. Which proves that Bush knew, and indeed, had, overcome any Democratic resistance to his agenda, even when there was a little.
Posted by: Karen | March 25, 2008 5:45 AM
Therefore, the mere spectre of resistance to a 'surge', which is pure speculation given you can't produce any evidence at all that Bush ever so much as considered one in the first place, could hardly have prevented Bush from proposing it.
Posted by: Karen | March 25, 2008 5:47 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?