Iraq as Success Story

Matt's right; this Brian Doherty piece on why the Iraq War may yet be regarded - wrongly - as a good idea is very smart. And I basically agree with its premise - that we shouldn't let any successes achieved from here on out blind us to the absolutely disastrous consequences of the initial invasion. Eventually, as Julian Sanchez notes, Iraq is bound to settle down, in some sense at least - but this settling down, if and when it comes, won't prove that the war was a good idea in the first place.

However, something like the reverse is also true: Just because the initial invasion was almost certainly a mistake doesn't necessarily mean that the continued presence of U.S. troops is a mistake as well. And I detect some goalpost-shifting here among the partisans of immediate withdrawal. Back in September, when Petraeus was testifying and the fur was flying, Matt was making roughly the same point that he and Julian and Brian Doherty are making now, except that he was saying things like "maybe Bush can change his line to the idea that if we just keep staying the course for 4 or 5 more years, casualties will drop massively because everyone will already be dead or displaced." Now it's less than two months later, the violence has continued to diminish, and Matt's response is: "After all, internecine violence in Iraq won't continue forever and since most ethnically mixed neighborhoods have already been cleansed, it's at least plausible that the worst is behind us." And he's right - it is at least plausible. But given that only six weeks ago he was throwing out "4 or 5 more years" as a timeline for when Iraq might start to settle down, I think it's also "at least plausible" that when we look back on the last year of American military operations in Iraq, we'll judge them to have played a major role in putting the worst behind us earlier than most people anticipated.

I'm not nearly as optimistic ("Iraqtimistic"?) on that count as this gentleman, mind you, but I'm hopeful.

Comments

Ross, here's how your congenial little phrase, "putting the worst behind us," would likely resonate with anyone who's actually suffered through the American occupation in Iraq:

The criminal instigators get off scot-free.

Oops! Our bad! Hope everything turns out okay over there! I'm just gonna slink back to my little ranch/thinktank/lecture circuit.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 5:41 PM

Any optimism is premature, of course, but it's a blog, so let's do it. If the optimism is justified, doesn't that mean that the most contemptible of all are those (Andrew Sullivan, Martin Peretz et al.) who supported the invasion and then finked out, while considerable credit goes to those (George Bush, first and foremost) who saw matters through to a successful conclusion? Shouldn't Sullivan and Peretz, at that point, have the decency to retire permanently from giving political advice?

Posted by y81 | October 31, 2007 8:27 PM

My goodness, the misapprehension (I hesitate to call it dishonesty) of this post is manifest.

I hope you'll consider Yglesias' response.

Posted by George Sorwell | October 31, 2007 10:02 PM

And I basically agree with its premise - that we shouldn't let any successes achieved from here on out blind us to the absolutely disastrous consequences of the initial invasion.

This does not compute. Successes later don't mitigate earlier failures? Does the reverse also work - later failures don't color earlier successes? You act like the putative future successes are somehow discontinuous with the invasion. It's one thing to say that we should pay close attention to the blind spots that the administration had about what would happen after taking out Saddam; it's quite another to argue that we shouldn't have taken out Saddam at all given that a reasonably good result took longer to achieve than we initially assumed it would.

And, as always, you are completely eliding the counterfactuals - how do you know that we would be better off now, let alone at some point in the future if Iraq becomes stable & self-sufficient, with Saddam still in power? People like to argue that US credibility has been damaged by the Iraq War, but what shape would it be in if we'd left Saddam in power, the sanctions had collapsed, and he continued on his merry warmaking (& WMD producing) ways? Most criticisms of the decision to invade, especially by those who originally supported the invasion but have since changed their mind, implicitly have some sort of nice, make-believe scenario against which they compare the ugly, real-world scenario we find ourselves in. But those counter-factual scenarios are never spelled out, let alone in any sort of plausible way.

Posted by Mike S. | October 31, 2007 10:08 PM

Doherty's post isn't "smart", it's merely an exercise in begging the question as to whether the Iraq war was "unnecessary" or not. He simply assumes that the answer to that question is 'yes'. Even on that assumption he's rather glib about assuming that the GOP will simply want to go around invading other Mid-Eastern countries, and the likely popularity of such a decision. I particularly like how someone "radicalized" by the war will blow up NYC in 2012 - like there was no threat of that happening absent the invasion, or that Saddam himself presented no similar dangers.

He also doesn't attempt to provide any examples of wars that shouldn't have been fought, but that were later seen to be OK by looking back through rose-colored glasses.

Posted by Mike S. | October 31, 2007 10:22 PM

Saddam himself didn't present similar dangers. We were taken in by a very good bluff. I say we because I fell for it too, it was my sole reason for supporting the invasion.

Even on that assumption he's rather glib about assuming that the GOP will simply want to go around invading other Mid-Eastern countries
I've read the PNAC charter and hear the war with Iran drumbeat, so I guess I'm "glib" about it too. I'd bet 8:10 odds that we're at war with Iran in 2008. It doesn't seem to be all that unpopular so far though.

Posted by Lynn | November 1, 2007 9:34 AM

Mike S., this argument is at bottom about the reasons for taking a country to war. It's not about "who will end up better off in the end." And there's such a thing as moral bankruptcy.

Successes later don't mitigate earlier failures? Does the reverse also work - later failures don't color earlier successes? You act like the putative future successes are somehow discontinuous with the invasion.

Well, they're only continuous if you beg a question of your own, viz. that anything that happens in Iraq in the next several decades should find its root cause in the American invasion. You can't think of any thought experiments that might discount that kind of assumption? If I murder you but the autopsy shows it saved you from dying a slow painful death, does that "mitigate" the act of murder? If I set the world marathon record but it destroys my knees, is the record then invalidated? etc etc

People seem to forget, a whole lot of people in Iraq paid the ultimate price with their lives, who would not have absent the American invasion. It's not about whether or not it would have been worse under Saddam -- it's about what WE Americans, rational actors with moral responsibilities of our own, brought about, both directly and indirectly. It's about the cost that WE incurred. It's about people against an unjust war being forced to watch their tax money support it. And it's about Iraqis with absolutely no chance at a say in the future of their own lives. Do you think they give a fuck how it turns out after they're dead, or after they've seen their families and friends brutally murdered in a security vaccuum?

Posted by Bill | November 1, 2007 9:43 AM

People like to argue that US credibility has been damaged by the Iraq War, but what shape would it be in if we'd left Saddam in power, the sanctions had collapsed, and he continued on his merry warmaking (& WMD producing) ways?

Uh, don't look now dude, but we didn't find any WMDs. Remember?

This IS the big question now: Has this war been worth it? The likes of Mike S will say yes - but they are going to say that regardless, whether this reduction in violence comes now or took another five years. Let's give credit where it's due and say the surge appears to have had an affect (and of course that begs all sorts of other question as to why we didn't try it sooner, how long we now have to maintain it and what that does to the armed forces). But nearly five years into a war that even the most pessimistic of onlookers didn't figure would take anywhere near this long - has this, then, been a glorious success?

Moreover, should we repeat that "glorious success" in Iran?

Posted by Gil | November 1, 2007 10:30 AM

Lynn,

Saddam himself didn't present similar dangers. We were taken in by a very good bluff. I say we because I fell for it too, it was my sole reason for supporting the invasion.

He was bluffing about having large stockpiles of WMD's, yes. But that was largely because he was trying to thread the needle between a) getting the sanctions lifted and b) still keeping his neighbors fearful of him. It's obvious that as soon as the sanctions regime came down, he would have proceeded apace with his WMD development & production programs.

And he was a regular supporter of terrorism. And he hated the US and would have taken any opportunity to kill Americans, especially if he thought he could escape blame.

I've read the PNAC charter and hear the war with Iran drumbeat, so I guess I'm "glib" about it too. I'd bet 8:10 odds that we're at war with Iran in 2008. It doesn't seem to be all that unpopular so far though.

I have no idea what the PNAC charter is. And bombing Iran is not the same thing as invading & occupying it.

-------

Bill,

Well, they're only continuous if you beg a question of your own, viz. that anything that happens in Iraq in the next several decades should find its root cause in the American invasion.

Is South Korea's current prosperity directly linked to our decision to engage in the Korean war 50 years ago? That was an "optional" war, too, but the consensus seems to be that because we kept the South free, it was a worthwhile thing to do.

People seem to forget, a whole lot of people in Iraq paid the ultimate price with their lives, who would not have absent the American invasion.

Who forgets that? We're constantly reminded of all the dead Iraqis and US soldiers. The question is whether their deaths were worth it, not whether people in fact died as a result of our invasion.

It's not about whether or not it would have been worse under Saddam -- it's about what WE Americans, rational actors with moral responsibilities of our own, brought about, both directly and indirectly. It's about the cost that WE incurred. It's about people against an unjust war being forced to watch their tax money support it.

Yes, it's all about us, and our navel-gazing moral preening on display. Oh, I supported a war that caused people to die, what a wretch I am! See me grovel in atonement for my poor judgement!

And it's about Iraqis with absolutely no chance at a say in the future of their own lives.

Umm, did they have more control over the future of their country with Saddam in control?

Do you think they give a fuck how it turns out after they're dead, or after they've seen their families and friends brutally murdered in a security vaccuum?

I imagine the people alive now who have lost loved ones care how it turns out.

--------

Posted by Mike S. | November 1, 2007 11:46 AM