We Lost The Iraq War Before We Ever Got There, And Jeb Bush Needed To Say So
It's what I said over and over on this blog about 9/11 and the Iraq invasion that followed -- basically that when one guy or set of guys robs a bank, you don't just willy-nilly go pick up another guy, who had nothing to do with that, and make him pay so somebody pays.
Also, attempting to export democracy to people whose culture is totally inhospitable to it is a fool's errand.
Jeb Bush got all mealy-mouthed about this but -- surprise! -- even National Review's Andrew McCarthy is talking like I was on the Iraq War, to the point that he notes, as I did, that it was Iran that that was the greater problem for our security.
Money quote:
There was overwhelming support for the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime should be ousted. There was little public appetite for an experiment in Iraqi democracy-building.
More:
The United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, by a global jihadist movement that was aided and abetted by state sponsors and that was not confined to a country or two. Our national interests were to eradicate the jihadists' capacity to project power and eliminate their state sponsors -- especially regimes likely to supply them with weapons. Chief among those regimes was Iran; further down the chain was Iraq.For a democracy such as ours to be successful in fighting wars, there must be public support for the war aims. There was overwhelming support for the proposition that Saddam Hussein's regime should be ousted. There was little public appetite for an experiment in Iraqi democracy-building -- especially once it was clear that we would not be "hailed as liberators" and that the venture would be prohibitively expensive.
The bipartisan public consensus that developed prior to the invasion was that Saddam's regime was an unacceptable threat to American national security in a post-9/11 environment. Regardless of whether one now believes that conclusion was flawed, there never was a consensus that American national security hinged on Iraq's post-Saddam political stability and evolution. It demonstrably did not: Iraq's Islamic culture did not want Western liberalism, and there is neither logical nor empirical support for the conclusion that Country A's being a democracy renders Country B safer from jihadist terror - indeed, jihadists thrive on exploitation of the freedoms available in Western democracies.
President Bush initially defined "victory in Iraq" as "helping the Iraqi people defeat the terrorists and build an inclusive democratic state," such that Iraq would be "peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
Most of those goals were fanciful and immaterial to the promotion of American national security. That is the most important lesson learned. Yet, Jeb Bush reaffirms his brother's dubious linkage of our security and Iraq's. On Wednesday, he opined that Iraq demonstrates the need to "have a strategy of security," and that, while this broke down for a time, his brother had "solved that mess with the surge and created when he left a much more stable Iraq."
Meanwhile, here's how our government shits on the members of the military who were exposed to a toxic chemical in Iraq.
Dubya Bush claimed that God told him to end the tyranny in Iraq. Anyone else wondering why God only speaks to morons?
Patrick at May 17, 2015 8:17 AM
You're right, but for the wrong reason.
Things were going so well in Iraq in 2010 that Joe Biden said a stable, self-reliant, free, democratic Iraq would be one of the Obama administration's signature achievements.
Obama blew the Status of Forces Agreement and here we are.
A number of folks, looking at it in hindsight, have said that, although they supported it all the way through, had they known Obama would be elected and, as dems do--see Viet Nam--piss it away as a matter of practice, they'd have looked at it differently.
Actually, since there were not WMD--includes biological and chemical--in Iraq, nobody could have been exposed. sarc.
Richard Aubrey at May 17, 2015 1:13 PM
Maybe Hillary is the better person to be asking questions about this mess. After all, she was in the loop from start to finish.
Bob in Texas at May 17, 2015 3:05 PM
Actually, since there were not WMD--includes biological and chemical--in Iraq, nobody could have been exposed. sarc.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 17, 2015 1:13 PM
There were chemical weapons in Iraq. And they were used against the Kurds and others. Now most of them are in Syria.
The dems keep trying to rewrite history. We went in there with a number of allies to enforce a UN resolution.
If you seriously think the situation in the Middle East and the world is better now than it was in 2002, You need to have your head examined.
Isab at May 17, 2015 5:11 PM
Amy Alkon: "basically that when one guy or set of guys robs a bank, you don't just willy-nilly go pick up another guy, who had nothing to do with that, and make him pay so somebody pays."
That reminded me of the debate between Reagan and Mondale in 1984. Mondale brought up the terrorist attacks on the U.S. barracks and embassy in Lebanon, and criticized President Reagan for not retaliating. I loved Reagan's response:
Mondale: "The terrorists have won each time. The President told the terrorists he was going to retaliate. He didn't. They called their bluff. And the bottom line is that the United States left in humiliation, and our enemies are stronger."
Reagan: "I'm tempted to ask you what you would do. These are unidentified people, and after the bomb goes off, they're blown to bits ... we're busy trying to find the centers where these operations stem from, and retaliation will be taken. But we're not going to simply kill some people to say, 'Oh, look, we got even.' We want to know when we retaliate that we're retaliating with those who are responsible for the terrorist acts."
Ken R at May 18, 2015 4:12 AM
Richard Aubrey: "Joe Biden said a stable, self-reliant, free, democratic Iraq would be one of the Obama administration's signature achievements."
Obama, Bush... what's the difference?
Ken R at May 18, 2015 4:15 AM
Amy Alkon: "Also, attempting to export democracy to people whose culture is totally inhospitable to it is a fool's errand."
Yes, yes, yes. A lot of Americans have the religiously held delusion that all people in the world long for democracy. It just isn't so.
Ken R at May 18, 2015 4:51 AM
Amy Alkon: "Also, attempting to export democracy to people whose culture is totally inhospitable to it is a fool's errand."
Ken R: "Yes, yes, yes. A lot of Americans have the religiously held delusion that all people in the world long for democracy. It just isn't so."
This is one of the things I truly dislike about the United States. For some reason, our government feels like we have to go into every other country in the world and make them be like us. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE IT RIGHT! Ever since the Bill of Rights was put into effect 226 years ago, not one day has gone by that citizens haven't had to fight for those rights. And we think other countries can do any better?
Fayd at May 18, 2015 10:56 AM
"Also, attempting to export democracy to people whose culture is totally inhospitable to it is a fool's errand."
So, I was stationed in Germany 40 years after World War II, for what reason? And we still have people in Korea, Japan and Italy.
Now, if there was an culture inhospitable to democracy, it was Japan. But that seemed to work.
It can happen, if some smart people are in charge. And after all, Iraq was a good place to start. It had a better educated populace, better general technology than most countries of SWA. I believe the idea was to make it work, and then it would spread to other countries.
Actually, it did. Some of Iran's people held an Arab Spring, and seemed to require only a nudge to overthrow the Ayatollah. But the not so smart people refused to acknowledge them.
Mike43 at May 18, 2015 12:27 PM
'Obama, Bush... what's the difference?'
You joke Ken, but honestly, not a lot.
Ben at May 18, 2015 6:27 PM
It is necessary for Bush's critics that he be seen to have lied. So they misrepresent what he said. Thus, the lack of nearly weapons-ready WMD in Iraq is proof.
Thing is, that isn't what he said, which most people know.
No sense reviewing the Kay and Duelfer reports here, but it would be accurate to say that, before the term was in use here, it could have been applied to Iraq's WMD program. The term is "shovel-ready".
Things were going so well in Iraq that, in 2010, Biden said that a stable, free, self-rerliant (etc.) Iraq would be a signature accomplishment of the Obama administration.
My regret is that had I known we would elect a progressive who would take steps to throw away that for which brave men died, I wouldn't have supported starting, either.
Richard Aubrey at May 19, 2015 7:26 AM
Leave a comment