November 21, 2005
WHAT THE LEFT KNEW THEN:
Making a Case: Giving the war a reason (David Remnick, 2003-02-03, The New Yorker)
At the United Nations General Assembly more than four months ago, Bush, after long delay, opened his case against Saddam Hussein with a pointed litany of Iraq's egregious violations of human rights and international law. With a gravity appropriate to the occasion, Bush surveyed everything from Saddam's genocide in the Kurdish north to his relentless ambition to build nuclear weapons and dominate the region, by employing the same level of terror that keeps his own citizens in a state of constant subjugation. [...]As it happens, the most comprehensive and convincing case for the use of force in Iraq has been made by a government intellectual, Kenneth M. Pollack. From 1995 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2001, Pollack served in the Clinton Administration as director for Gulf affairs at the National Security Council; before that, he was a military analyst of the Persian Gulf region for the C.I.A. More effectively than Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz or any other of the hawkish big thinkers in the Administration, Pollack, in his book "The Threatening Storm," presents in almost rueful terms the myriad reasons that an aggressive policy toward Iraq now is the least bad of our alternatives. As Bush did at the U.N., Pollack carefully describes the Stalinist character of Saddam's state: the pervasive use of torture to terrorize and subdue the citizenry and insure the loyalty of the Army and the security apparatus; the acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing; the use of chemical weapons on neighbors and his own citizens; the sponsorship of terrorist groups; the refusal to relinquish weapons of mass destruction despite the humanitarian and economic cost the Iraqis pay through international embargo. We are reminded, too, of Saddam's vision of himself as the modern Saladin, the modern Nebuchadnezzar II, who (after massacring the Kurds, invading Kuwait, and attacking the marsh Arabs of the south) vows to "liberate" Jerusalem, vanquish the United States, and rule over a united Arab world. Saddam is not a man of empty promises. His territorial aggression is a matter of record, his nuclear ambitions are clear.
Unlike the President, Pollack dignifies all possible objections and what-ifs with answers. For example, he concedes that North Korea and Iran are, in some ways, even greater and more obvious threats than Iraq, but he carefully shows why the regional politics of northern Asia require a different tack and why Iran, with its more dynamic, grass-roots politics, is far likelier to undergo a homegrown revolution or reform than Iraq, where politics of any kind are not permitted.
The United States has been wrong, politically and morally, about Iraq more than once in the past; Washington has supported Saddam against Iran and overlooked some of his bloodiest adventures. The price of being wrong yet again could be incalculable. History will not easily excuse us if, by deciding not to decide, we defer a reckoning with an aggressive totalitarian leader who intends not only to develop weapons of mass destruction but also to use them.
Saddam's abdication, or a military coup, would be a godsend; his sudden conversion to the wisdom of disarmament almost as good. It is a fine thing to dream. But, assuming such dreams are not realized, a return to a hollow pursuit of containment will be the most dangerous option of all.
Today they make the argument that the hollow pursuit was sufficient.
MORE:
Us and Them: On the promise of war, and the risks of going it alone (David Remnick, 2002-09-23, The New Yorker)
At the General Assembly, George W. Bush broadly sketched the crimes and treaty violations that Saddam has committed since the signing of the truce with the American-led coalition: the arrest, torture, and execution of dissidents; the harboring of and support for terrorists; the drive to stockpile biological and chemical weapons; and, above all, the unending effort to develop nuclear explosives—all in defiance of specific U.N. resolutions with which Iraq had agreed to comply. Iraq is not the only country on earth that falls into the modern category of "rogue states." But Saddam's record of murderous unpredictability, the scope and ruthlessness of his regional ambitions, and the scale of his wrongs make his a singularly threatening case. "We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather," Mr. Bush said. About that he is right.The U.N. speech, however, would have been a great deal more effective had it been the climax of a considered campaign of diplomatic mobilization. It was not. Instead, it followed a display of braggadocio and incoherence so scattershot as to amount to fecklessness. There was a mystifying debate-by-leak among Bush Cabinet members, mocking their self-conception as paragons of discretion and self-discipline. There was a lot of belligerent, go-it-alone rhetoric, emanating especially from the offices of the Secretary of Defense and the Vice-President. There were the leaks of war plans to the press. And, most damaging, there were gratuitous expressions of scorn for international opinion and support. The contrast with Bush père could hardly be starker. The result was to frighten and alienate both the élites and the broader publics of much of the rest of the democratic world, and to what end?
The essential moment of the President's speech came at its peroration. "We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions," Bush said. "But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."
He concluded, "We must stand up for our security and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well. Thank you very much."
Well, thank you very much. Such was the reaction in some corners of the hall. In plain terms, the President was saying: We're going ahead, to war. It would be nice if you joined us. But, if not, have I mentioned that we're going ahead?
What about WMD? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 21, 2005 2:30 PM
Bush's unforgivable crime was that he forced upon the "elite" an opportunity to behave like one just when it would no longer.
Posted by: Luciferous at November 21, 2005 3:42 PMIt's been just great having a leader who told it as he saw it and who tried to do the right thing regardless of his own popularity in the polls. I've been around for awhile and if history is any precedent, it'll be a long time until we see another one. Appeciate the man, painful though it may be at times. He's making history and you're watching it.
Posted by: Genecis at November 21, 2005 5:58 PMAnd GWB probably wanted to add: ".. and I have to correct the impression my father left, that he is a whimp..."
But, he (GWB) didn't say that and it would a lie to say he did!
Wars are started for lesser reasons, e.g., Vietnam conflict was not based on any real torpedo attacks; but, LBJ's concern about how he would be perceived.
Posted by: Oldkayaker at November 21, 2005 9:22 PMJFK started the Vietnam War. LBJ inherited it.
Posted by: oj at November 21, 2005 11:18 PMLBJ may have been a thief, a liar and a cheat, but he couldn't hold a candle to Kennedy who actually believed his press and forgot he was the dumb, second son of a vile and vicious man who wanted the world and was well on his way to getting it when fate interfered.
Correction oj
JFK sent advisors to Vietnam... low profile and did not escalate or use the draft. LBJ escalated and used the draft to provide the bodies.
I know what war means oj I was there!
Posted by: oldkayaker at November 22, 2005 4:57 PMok:
You were part of the Kennedy era all-volunteer force and the "low profile" coup?
Posted by: oj at November 22, 2005 5:25 PMOK, Would those be the same low key advisers Kennedy sent to off his bud Diem?
Posted by: erp at November 22, 2005 8:45 PMERP said: "Would those be the same low key advisors Kennedy sent to off his bud Diem?"
Ah yeah, Erp, remember those good old days of sneaky, low profile, covert special ops. when bad actors were dispensed with neatly and with little fuss?
Ah....., for the good old days when the US took care of the bad guys without costing everyone a loved one and a bunch of dough!
Posted by: oldkayaker at November 24, 2005 12:02 AMI guess the New Yorker figures that it's only New York City, so why worry about a few thousand dead.
Posted by: PacRim Jim at November 26, 2005 4:04 PMThe New Yorker's outlook comes right from the top, from Hendrik Hertzberg, editor. His loathing for Bush is without limit, and it's been that way from the start. As a conservative, pro-American, evangelical Christian from Texas, GW distills everything HH dispises to his marrow culturally, and in spades. Hertzberg's editorials are without exception jeremiads that lambaste and mock some aspect of this administration, its policies, or its personnel. It took a while for them to migrate beyond the editorial pages, but the views of the boss have become de rigeur at The New Yorker throughout the magazine, with anti-Bush jibes and cheap shots now peppering the reviews of plays, movies, and articles that have nothing whatever to do with Bush or his religion or Iraq. In other words, a great magazine has been corrupted by the politics of its editor, and any writer who desires a future at the magazine no doubt feels the pressure to bowderlize his or her own work to conform to Hertzberg's ideological line.
Posted by: Byron at November 26, 2005 4:33 PMActually, North Viet Nam started the Viet Nam War, before we were ever involved.
The War in Iraq was going to be fought again after the Gulf War I exercise. Saddam turned that into a propaganda victory for himself saying essentially that the Great Satan had been defeated and would never get close to Baghdad. He didn't wimper and lick his wounds, he went on a spree of building his WMD capability and killing his own people.
Really, the only question was when was it to be fought and who would join us in the mission. We had plenty of reasons all through the 90's but Willie couldn't pull the trigger. I believe to this day that he wishes 9-11 had happened on his watch. It was a key to redeeming his soiled legacy.
Bush assumed the mantle of 10 years of ignomious punches to the nose and a body slam to the gut at the WTC II. He over threw the Taliban and challenged Saddam to lay down his WMD. Saddam lied and many people died. That's simply how we got where we are today inspite of Biden, Pelosi and the assorted quitters and losers in the Congress.
We have the momentum and Bush has the will to finish the job, and now, time is on our side. Zarqawi can't win militarily nor politically. Twelve months from now, freed from the necessity to baby-sit Iraq's return to civilization, we'll begin to directly address the question of the next real threat to our way of life, Iran. By then, Assad may well be gone and the tree of freedom will be spreading its branches across the Middle East.
Posted by: ED POINSETT at November 26, 2005 4:59 PMGee, I remember Eisenhower sending advisors to the Vietnamese right after we pulled the French out of Dien Bien Phu. He, however, unlike the Kennedy/Johnson crew, knew enough to restrict them to just being advisors and also limited the number of them to, if I remember right, 1500 men. He saw to it that the South Vietnamese did the fighting and they were doing well. Then we got Kennedy/Johnson/McNamara administration (worse luck) and their decision to ramp it up and we got the Vietnamese War. When the Johnson crew decided to run it from DC and the media told us that the Tet Offensive was a loss for us, the protestors screwed it up and we lost what should have been a win. The combo of the media and the McNamara crew messed it up to the point that Nixon's hands were tied.
Posted by: dick at November 26, 2005 5:03 PMThe north vietnamese communist started the war and finished it by rolling tanks into Saigon after US support was no longer provided.
Posted by: m. watkins at November 26, 2005 7:30 PMVietnam was EVEN ONE MORE TIME in which the US entered to save the French's sorry arshes. Where would the French be by now if it wasn't for the USA during the XX century. Probable there wouldn't be a France anymore. And they hate the US. How disgusting are for me ungrateful people. There's a saying in Spanish: "People of good birth are grateful". In other words, bastards aren't. And the French aren't, and so many others, actually, like those POS that enjoy an incredible freedom of speech and use it to attack the very people that have given it to them. Disgusting. Anyway I'm very optimistic and always believe that the side of Light will triumph over darkness.
Posted by: Miguel at November 26, 2005 9:34 PMByron: bingo. Hertzberg is Pinchifying the New Yorker. Only the lower level people at the Times realize what Pinch n' company have done to that once respectable newspaper; likewise, only lower level people, newbies, and unwashed contributors can see the sad drag the New Yorker has become because of the editor's frenzied obsession. Bush will move on into history and the Times and New Yorker's attitude likewise: just like the Herald Trib of Lincoln's time.
Posted by: Sam Stack at November 26, 2005 9:51 PMSecondhand, but still perhaps valuable. A friend sent to Vietnam in 1962 was told he was going to protect the rubber plantations from the North Vietnamese.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at November 26, 2005 10:34 PMAll of the Left's argument is hate toward Bush and the right. A long time ago they used to be for human rights, now they'd prefer Saddam in power instead of removed by the head of the opposing political party. They base it on principal: we were lied to. Imagine, this is how much the Left doesn't like a lie?
Posted by: Steevo at November 27, 2005 3:06 AM