When it was neither profitable nor popular

by John Q on February 1, 2005

As noted in previous posts, there has been a lot of triumphalism among pro-war bloggers about the success of the elections in Iraq and, even allowing for a low turnout in Sunni areas and the difficulties that lie ahead, it’s certainly the best news we’ve had for some time. But I’d be interested to know how many of these bloggers supported democratic elections a year ago, when Bremer was pushing a bizarre system of regional caucuses? A limited Google search found sympathy for Bremer’s plan from Belgravia Dispatch , den Beste and Winds of Change, but I couldn’t locate any premature democrats in the pro-war blogosphere. However, the collaborative power of blogreaders is better than Google, so I invite links. Ideally, I’d like examples of prowar bloggers rejecting Bremer’s plan and supporting Sistani’s call for elections. I’m happy to concede that anyone in this class is entitled to a bit of triumph today.

Update A better Google search “bremer sistani elections support blog” finds this from The Brothers Judd and this from Norm Geras. I’m not surprised to find Geras, whose support for the war has been based on more defensible arguments than most. I don’t know much about the Brothers Judd but they go up in my estimation for this. Still the general pattern is pretty clear. Most of those who are now crowing about the elections backed Bremer’s attempts to block them, while those who supported elections all along are mostly found among opponents of the war.

{ 57 comments }

1

themoabird 02.01.05 at 7:59 am

So you’re turning elections in Iraq into a blogging competition.

Quite brilliant.

2

Vance Maverick 02.01.05 at 9:12 am

Extra points, of course, if back then they were blogging in Erse.

3

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 9:19 am

I am not a blogger, which probably means I don’t count, particularly as I can’t supply a link, but yes I was in favour of Sistani’s call and would have liked to see elections in May or June last year. Well better late than never.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/013105A.html

I hate this triumphalism, why on Earth does everything that’s happening in Iraq have to be seen in a partisan light?

Something good happens … ah proof that all anti-war types are really fascists who’d support a tyrant out of blind hate for America and Bush.

Something bad happens … must be the fault of Bush and his illegal war, it’s all his fault and people who were in favour of this terrible war should be ashamed of themselves.

What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative (lest of course there is good evidence to the contrary, there are some pro-war types who supported the invasion to seek revenge for 9/11, while there are some very illiberal anti-war types)?

Finally, I am wondering what you’ve got to say about my comments on the Lancet study?

I do think the study throws up questions. We should try to understand better what happened in Fallujah. We should try to get a better estimate of infant mortality in Iraq.

But I also think it’s severely misleading and wrong to blame use of aerial weaponry for most death in Iraq. If we are really trying to improve things, rather than merely trying to assign blame, accuracy is important. 6 bombing deaths ex Fallujah are no basis for sweeping statements that to me appear contrary to other evidence, which would indicate that crime, terrorism and small arms fire by frightened 19 year old soldiers are the big problems that need addressing, not bombing strategy.

4

Darren 02.01.05 at 9:53 am

“Many if not most voters did not in fact know for whom they were voting. I am not kidding, they voted lists that did not name candidates, or even in some cases candidates who did not want to run. The results therefore, whatever they are, are not exactly conclusive. “

According to the introduction to this book when we set up democracy vs terrorism we are hiding the question ‘what sort of democracy?’ If the first link is anything to go by it is quite a valid question.

5

dsquared 02.01.05 at 9:55 am

Heiko, I don’t want to be rude, but which comments in particular are these? I’m not aware of any of your comments that we haven’t responded to.

On the general issue of triumphalism, John has quite clearly gone out of his way to find other people who were also right and agreed with him. But in his case, a bit of boasting is appropriate; he made an extremely nonconsensus call and took a lot of stick for it, so it’s entirely appropriate to say so.

6

Kevin Donoghue 02.01.05 at 10:01 am

“Finally, I am wondering what you’ve got to say about my comments on the Lancet study?”

Since that thread is open anyone who wants to comment can still do so there. For my part I think anyone who is spraying the phrase “possibly a combatant” as if it were some kind of disinfectant is missing the point of a mortality study. It isn’t about whether they had it coming. In the words of a Clint Eastwood character: we’ve all got it coming, kid.

7

Doug 02.01.05 at 10:52 am

Speaking of attributing lower motives, Heiko, I think the bits quoted above from M. Malkin pretty much take the cake. Nothing like random slander to make an argument go ’round, eh?

8

Down and Out in Sài Gòn 02.01.05 at 11:57 am

Heiko: I can’t see much triumphalism from JQ. I think of him providing the essential service of remembrance. Rarely has amnesia been this so common, and so selective, and so pervasive, and so convenient, but on the blogosphere.

9

Andrew Boucher 02.01.05 at 12:19 pm

Well to your April 2004 post I wrote in the comments:

“1/ I’d agree that elections are better sooner rather than later. They are also in U.S. interests, since later allows more time for the situation in Iraq to deteriorate, which will tend to radicalize rather than soften the electorate.”

Can’t remember whether I put anything on my blog before then, I’d have to check. Alas, I’m not a pro-war blogger, in the sense of being pro-war before the war. I was (if I can remember correctly):
1/ against the war before the war, because I thought that the only justification for the war would be WMDs, but I did not believe this threat credible
2/ once the war was over, I was for an occupation which would lead to a democratic Iraq and therefore disappointed with some ant-war bloggers and European countries whose mission seemed to be to beat up on the U.S. rather than help the process
3/ once it was clear that few were going to help the U.S. and the U.K. in any substantial way, and the situation was regressing in Iraq, I supported the U.S. to do the best job it could, within limits, and then get the Hell out of there.

For what it’s worth, my position now is to abide by the Iraqi decision when to get U.S. troops out of there. This could be wishful thinking, because it depends on there being an Iraqi goverment strong and independent enough to make a decision.

10

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 1:15 pm

https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003157.html#comments

http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/001189.html

Hi dsquared,

that’s the comments I am referring to.

On the topic of “triumphalism”; you are misreading me, I gave the link to techcentralstation as an example of pro-war triumphalism I don’t like. While I may be on the other side of the argument, on whether the original invasion was a good decision, I agree with John that triumphalism by pro-war partisans is wrong.

I also agree with John and did at the time, though I don’t have a link handy to prove it, that Sistani’s call for earlier elections should have been heeded. I am not sure why it wasn’t, but I wouldn’t pre-suppose anti-democratic urges on the part of the administration. They may for example have thought that this would give extra time to ensure security.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary I would give people the benefit of the doubt on their motivations.

11

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 1:22 pm

https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003157.html#comments

http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/001189.html

Hi dsquared,

that’s the comments I am referring to.

On the topic of “triumphalism”; you are misreading me, I gave the link to techcentralstation as an example of pro-war triumphalism I don’t like. While I may be on the other side of the argument, on whether the original invasion was a good decision, I agree with John that triumphalism by pro-war partisans is wrong.

I also agree with John and did at the time, though I don’t have a link handy to prove it, that Sistani’s call for earlier elections should have been heeded. I am not sure why it wasn’t, but I wouldn’t pre-suppose anti-democratic urges on the part of the administration. They may for example have thought that this would give extra time to ensure security.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary I would give people the benefit of the doubt on their motivations.

12

Ben Alpers 02.01.05 at 1:32 pm

Heiko:What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative

Why should we make this assumption? To begin with, Iraqis are not the only people affected by this war. It has been enormously expensive in terms of lives and money to the U.S. It has had a profound effect on the region (one can debate what that effect has been of course). It has arguably worsened our national security as well. At any rate, any cost-benefit analysis of the war has to consider matters beyond what’s best for Iraqis. Certainly the case for war had little if anything to do with what was best for the people of Iraq. IIRC, it was all about preventing Saddam from hiring Ossama bin Laden to nuke us (or something like that).

Even an expanded cost-benefit analysis would entail a view that the ends might justify the means. Those who feel that this war was illegal and unjustified on its face will not surprisingly not be swayed by consequentialist defenses of it.

At any rate, the bottom line is that virtually nobody on either side of the debate over the Iraq war was thinking _exclusively_ of the Iraqi people. Nor should they have been.

13

Ben Alpers 02.01.05 at 1:33 pm

Heiko:What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative

Why should we make this assumption? To begin with, Iraqis are not the only people affected by this war. It has been enormously expensive in terms of lives and money to the U.S. It has had a profound effect on the region (one can debate what that effect has been of course). It has arguably worsened our national security as well. At any rate, any cost-benefit analysis of the war has to consider matters beyond what’s best for Iraqis. Certainly the case for war had little if anything to do with what was best for the people of Iraq. IIRC, it was all about preventing Saddam from hiring Ossama bin Laden to nuke us (or something like that).

Even an expanded cost-benefit analysis would entail a view that the ends might justify the means. Those who feel that this war was illegal and unjustified on its face will not surprisingly not be swayed by consequentialist defenses of it.

At any rate, the bottom line is that virtually nobody on either side of the debate over the Iraq war was thinking _exclusively_ of the Iraqi people. Nor should they have been.

14

Ben Alpers 02.01.05 at 1:35 pm

Heiko:What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative

Why should we make this assumption? To begin with, Iraqis are not the only people affected by this war. It has been enormously expensive in terms of lives and money to the U.S. It has had a profound effect on the region (one can debate what that effect has been of course). It has arguably worsened our national security as well. At any rate, any cost-benefit analysis of the war has to consider matters beyond what’s best for Iraqis. Certainly the case for war had little if anything to do with what was best for the people of Iraq. IIRC, it was all about preventing Saddam from hiring Ossama bin Laden to nuke us (or something like that).

Even an expanded cost-benefit analysis would entail a view that the ends might justify the means. Those who feel that this war was illegal and unjustified on its face will not surprisingly not be swayed by consequentialist defenses of it.

At any rate, the bottom line is that virtually nobody on either side of the debate over the Iraq war was thinking _exclusively_ of the Iraqi people. Nor should they have been.

15

Ben Alpers 02.01.05 at 1:37 pm

Heiko:What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative

Why should we make this assumption? To begin with, Iraqis are not the only people affected by this war. It has been enormously expensive in terms of lives and money to the U.S. It has had a profound effect on the region (one can debate what that effect has been of course). It has arguably worsened our national security as well. At any rate, any cost-benefit analysis of the war has to consider matters beyond what’s best for Iraqis. Certainly the case for war had little if anything to do with what was best for the people of Iraq. IIRC, it was all about preventing Saddam from hiring Ossama bin Laden to nuke us (or something like that).

Even an expanded cost-benefit analysis would entail a view that the ends might justify the means. Those who feel that this war was illegal and unjustified on its face will not surprisingly not be swayed by consequentialist defenses of it.

At any rate, the bottom line is that virtually nobody on either side of the debate over the Iraq war was thinking _exclusively_ of the Iraqi people. Nor should they have been.

16

jet 02.01.05 at 1:44 pm

If by triumphalism, you mean the belief that promoting Democracy in Iraq is the best policy, then why shouldn’t the war-bloggers be triumpant? Just because there was a compromise between the Americans and the Iraqis about how to go about creating a Democracy does not change the fact that both sides (those who wanted it sooner and those who wanted to wait) wanted the election all along.

Having the elections now is certainly a larger gamble than the US admin wanted to take, but at least as payment for this gamble, the US gets a huge morale boost in the ME and the US.

17

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 2:02 pm

Hi Darren,

in proportional presentation, we vote for parties, not candidates. Few people in Germany, for example, would know many of the candidates on the party lists they are voting for.

In Iraq the candidates have a pretty powerful excuse for staying anonymous. Their mere act of being a candidate, and be it standing as a communist, or a member of the Iraqi Greens, is after all enough for Zarqawi to threaten them with being beheaded.

18

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 2:07 pm

Hi Darren,

people who vote in Germany generally do so without knowing very many people on the party lists they are giving their vote to.

More importantly, with the threat of assassination or beheadings hanging over candidates it’s easy to see why they might wish to stay anonymous (and Zarqawi hasn’t excepted trade unionists, socialists, feminists, greens etc. from this).

19

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 2:08 pm

Hi Darren,

people who vote in Germany generally do so without knowing very many people on the party lists they are giving their vote to.

More importantly, with the threat of assassination or beheadings hanging over candidates it’s easy to see why they might wish to stay anonymous (and Zarqawi hasn’t excepted trade unionists, socialists, feminists, greens etc. from this).

20

Ben Alpers 02.01.05 at 2:09 pm

Heiko:What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative

Why should we make this assumption? To begin with, Iraqis are not the only people affected by this war. It has been enormously expensive in terms of lives and money to the U.S. It has had a profound effect on the region (one can debate what that effect has been of course). It has arguably worsened our national security as well. At any rate, any cost-benefit analysis of the war has to consider matters beyond what’s best for Iraqis. Certainly the case for war had little if anything to do with what was best for the people of Iraq. IIRC, it was all about preventing Saddam from hiring Ossama bin Laden to nuke us (or something like that).

Even an expanded cost-benefit analysis would entail a view that the ends might justify the means. Those who feel that this war was illegal and unjustified on its face will not surprisingly not be swayed by consequentialist defenses of it.

At any rate, the bottom line is that virtually nobody on either side of the debate over the Iraq war was thinking _exclusively_ of the Iraqi people. Nor should they have been.

21

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 2:11 pm

Hi Darren,

people who vote in Germany generally do so without knowing very many people on the party lists they are giving their vote to.

More importantly, with the threat of assassination or beheadings hanging over candidates it’s easy to see why they might wish to stay anonymous (and Zarqawi hasn’t excepted trade unionists, socialists, feminists, greens etc. from this).

22

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 2:13 pm

Hi Darren,

people who vote in Germany generally do so without knowing very many people on the party lists they are giving their vote to.

More importantly, with the threat of assassination or beheadings hanging over candidates it’s easy to see why they might wish to stay anonymous (and Zarqawi hasn’t excepted trade unionists, socialists, feminists, greens etc. from this).

23

Motoko 02.01.05 at 2:21 pm

That Tech Central Station link is very funny.

As stated, the group of non-Iraqis in America entitled to exult is tiny: it consists of President Bush himself, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, certain other members of the cabinet and defense establishment, and a highly exclusive media list: Bill Kristol and crew at The Weekly Standard, myself and some others writing on TCS and a handful of other publications. (I won’t be modest about this.)

24

mw 02.01.05 at 2:22 pm

Shrug. As I understand it, the point of the regional elections first, followed by constitution writing, followed by general elections was to provide a mechanism to assure that the rights of the Kurds and Sunni would not be overwhelmed by the Shiite majority. Perhaps it was too slow and complex to have worked, or perhaps it would have worked had Sistani supported it. We’ll never know for sure. But it certainly was not an ANTI-democracy position (as seems to be the suggestion) but a different route.

The problem of protecting the rights of Kurds and especially Sunnis has not gone away–it is going to have to be solved in setting up the new government. I do believe that the Shia realize it is in their own interest to share power, so I’m cautiously optimistic, but still, I don’t think there’s any reason to think Bremmer’s proposal was crazy or ‘against democracy’.

25

mw 02.01.05 at 2:24 pm

Shrug. As I understand it, the point of the regional elections first, followed by constitution writing, followed by general elections was to provide a mechanism to assure that the rights of the Kurds and Sunni would not be overwhelmed by the Shiite majority. Perhaps it was too slow and complex to have worked, or perhaps it would have worked had Sistani supported it. We’ll never know for sure. But it certainly was not an ANTI-democracy position (as seems to be the suggestion) but a different route.

The problem of protecting the rights of Kurds and especially Sunnis has not gone away–it is going to have to be solved in setting up the new government. I do believe that the Shia realize it is in their own interest to share power, so I’m cautiously optimistic, but still, I don’t think there’s any reason to think Bremmer’s proposal was crazy or ‘against democracy’.

26

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 2:45 pm

Sorry, about all this double and triple posting, but there seems to be some serious problem with your server, as I am not the only one.

27

Phil Hunt 02.01.05 at 2:46 pm

I was in favour of elections much earlier. They should have, and could have, been held in 2003. Looking back on by blog coverage, it seems the first time I explicitly said this was in April 2004, here.

Not wishing to crow, but my intuitions on Iraq have been remarkably accurate. (Oh, alright, I’ll admit it, I do wish to crow).

For example, before Saddam was overthrown, I imagined there would be an insurgency into 2005. And I was probably the first to suggest the USA would appoint Allawi.

Incidently, if the UIA list wins the Iraqi elections, that’ll verify another of my statements about the country — that Abdul Aziz al-Hakin, who is #1 on the UIA list, is the most or one of the most, popular politicians in Iraq: “Sadr probably isn’t the most popular figure in Iraq, not even among Shi’ites — Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is probably more popular as is the SCIRI Party led by Abdel Aziz Hakim”.

Many (probably most) bloggers on Iraq fall firmly into one of two camps, and you can predict their opinions on everything Iraqi-related by which camp they fall into. But reality isn’t black and white, it is shades of grey, and I find if I try to remove my ideological blinkers (we all have them) I can see more clearly. And I provably have seen more clearly, on the subject of Iraq at least, than people who haven’t been so accurate in making predictions.

My detailed prediction for the election result is here — it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.

28

Phil Hunt 02.01.05 at 2:52 pm

I was in favour of elections much earlier. They should have, and could have, been held in 2003. Looking back on by blog coverage, it seems the first time I explicitly said this was in April 2004, here.

Not wishing to crow, but my intuitions on Iraq have been remarkably accurate. (Oh, alright, I’ll admit it, I do wish to crow).

For example, before Saddam was overthrown, I imagined there would be an insurgency into 2005. And I was probably the first to suggest the USA would appoint Allawi.

Incidently, if the UIA list wins the Iraqi elections, that’ll verify another of my statements about the country — that Abdul Aziz al-Hakin, who is #1 on the UIA list, is the most or one of the most, popular politicians in Iraq: “Sadr probably isn’t the most popular figure in Iraq, not even among Shi’ites — Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is probably more popular as is the SCIRI Party led by Abdel Aziz Hakim”.

Many (probably most) bloggers on Iraq fall firmly into one of two camps, and you can predict their opinions on everything Iraqi-related by which camp they fall into. But reality isn’t black and white, it is shades of grey, and I find if I try to remove my ideological blinkers (we all have them) I can see more clearly. And I provably have seen more clearly, on the subject of Iraq at least, than people who haven’t been so accurate in making predictions. Before the war, I was in favour of it, though with serious reservations which have been entirely vindicated. I though Bush was fighting the war for the wrong reasons (anyone who thinks he did it out of the kindness of his heart because he cares about the Iraqi people is simply bonkers), but I also thought Iraq would be better of without Saddam. Which it will be eventually (I hope and expect).

My detailed prediction for the election result is here — it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.

29

Phil Hunt 02.01.05 at 2:55 pm

I was in favour of elections much earlier. They should have, and could have, been held in 2003. Looking back on by blog coverage, it seems the first time I explicitly said this was in April 2004, here.

Not wishing to crow, but my intuitions on Iraq have been remarkably accurate. (Oh, alright, I’ll admit it, I do wish to crow).

For example, before Saddam was overthrown, I imagined there would be an insurgency into 2005. And I was probably the first to suggest the USA would appoint Allawi.

Incidently, if the UIA list wins the Iraqi elections, that’ll verify another of my statements about the country — that Abdul Aziz al-Hakin, who is #1 on the UIA list, is the most or one of the most, popular politicians in Iraq: “Sadr probably isn’t the most popular figure in Iraq, not even among Shi’ites — Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is probably more popular as is the SCIRI Party led by Abdel Aziz Hakim”.

Many (probably most) bloggers on Iraq fall firmly into one of two camps, and you can predict their opinions on everything Iraqi-related by which camp they fall into. But reality isn’t black and white, it is shades of grey, and I find if I try to remove my ideological blinkers (we all have them) I can see more clearly. And I provably have seen more clearly, on the subject of Iraq at least, than people who haven’t been so accurate in making predictions. Before the war, I was in favour of it, though with serious reservations which have been entirely vindicated. I though Bush was fighting the war for the wrong reasons (anyone who thinks he did it out of the kindness of his heart because he cares about the Iraqi people is simply bonkers), but I also thought Iraq would be better of without Saddam. Which it will be eventually (I hope and expect).

My detailed prediction for the election result is here — it’ll be interesting to see how it turns out.

30

Darren 02.01.05 at 2:57 pm

Hi Heiko

the threat of assassination or beheadings hanging over candidates it’s easy to see why they might wish to stay anonymous

where do you think that the threats outlined above, originate?

31

Phil Hunt 02.01.05 at 2:57 pm

I was in favour of elections much earlier. They should have, and could have, been held in 2003. Looking back on by blog coverage, it seems the first time I explicitly said this was in April 2004, here.

32

Eric 02.01.05 at 3:07 pm

For me I will agree that the war has been going, well, better than I expected and the elections were a big step forward but that does not mitigate the problems in my mind.

For me it comes down to the fact that the Pro-War camp is justifying itself on the outcome not the means. The american public was lied to, the UN was lied to, thousands of americans dead, estimates of 100k iraqi’s dead. US credibility in Foreign policy is crap, and americans are still the laughing stock of the world because , as a whole, we still buy the line that sadam had nuclear materal and links to 9/11.

For me we need to finish what we started as a matter of not screwing up the same problem twice, but that does not mean that we should let this administration get away with crimes against other soverign nations and blatiently lying to the public.

33

Rajeev Advani 02.01.05 at 3:25 pm

Over at Full Context elections were supported by pro-war writers as far back as last February:

http://www.fullcontext.com/archives/000123.html

34

Darren 02.01.05 at 3:34 pm

Hi Heiko

in proportional presentation, we vote for parties, not candidates. Few people in Germany, for example, would know many of the candidates on the party lists they are voting for.

To which I re-iterate my point …

According to the introduction to this book when we set up democracy vs terrorism we are hiding the question ‘what sort of democracy?’

35

mw 02.01.05 at 4:13 pm

The american public was lied to, the UN was lied to,

No, Bush did not lie. The Bushies thought there were WMDs. The Democrats thought there WMDs (read speeches given in the year or two before Bush took office). The Europeans thought Saddam had WMDs. It’s even possible that Saddam *himself* thought he had WMDs.

thousands of americans dead

Thousands? Plural?

estimates of 100k iraqi’s dead.

Yes, and there were estimates of 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to sanctions. In both cases the actualy facts are impossible to detangle from the political motivation.

US credibility in Foreign policy is crap

Is it? Does the world now believe that the US is incapable of backing up words with action? That the US lacks the resolve to see things through even when the going gets tough? Does, say, the world now believe that the US cares nothing for democracy in Iraq and will, instead, institute imperial rule any time now as was alleged?

Western european anti-Americanism? It’s always there — sometimes it’s more latent, at other times more strident, but it wasn’t created with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it wouldn’t have gone away if John Kerry were president.

It will diminish somewhat as the US does what it said it was going to do all along rather than what the anti-Americans claimed — e.g. Iraq will be an independent democracy, not an imperial outpost, US troops will not outstay their welcome, the US will buy, not steal, Iraqi oil, etc, etc.

36

Kevin Donoghue 02.01.05 at 4:26 pm

“No, Bush did not lie. The Bushies thought there were WMDs.”

Will we ever hear the end of this drivel? Yes, the Bushies thought there were WMDs. If the Bushies had said “We think there are WMDs” that would have been a truthful statement. What they actually said, in various ways, was “We know there are WMDs”.

In plain English: they lied, repeatedly.

37

roger 02.01.05 at 4:44 pm

Heiko, I’ve noticed that your comment has,I think justly, stirred the most response: “What gets me annoyed is when anti-war types suggest lower motives, can’t we accept that whatever decision people supported, they did so, because they genuinely believed that one particular cause of action would help Iraqis more than the other alternative.”

As an anti-war type, I disagree. Over the long run, I think Americans are absolutely indifferent about the fate of the Iraqis, just as they were of the fate of the Nicaraugans, the fate of the El Salvadorans, the fate of the Vietmanese, the fate of the Khmer, and so on. The U.S.A. is a notoriously inward looking country. Its crusades, in the world, have always been led to free or democratize one peoples or another, but there is zero reaction if these crusades don’t, in fact, result in democratizing one peoples or another. In the short run, the pro-war community is riveted to whether Iraq is ‘democratic’ or not, but this community did not come into being before Bush and his minions called for war, and the probability is it will diminish to zero after Bush and his minions pull up stakes in Iraq. A quick survey of American crusades is instructive. How many Americans are rivetted by, say, the spectacle of democracy in Panama at present? You can count the headlines on your fingers. But when Bush I went charging in to remove Noriega, you’d find the same intense outburst of pro-democracy propaganda. The same thing is true for ‘democracy’ in Kuwait, or “democracy” in Nicarauga, or ‘democracy’ in Haiti.

Given the indifference of the population on the whole to the long range success of America’s long range plans, foreign policy making in the U.S. tends to escape the constraints of the checks and balances that shape America’s domestic politics. Which is why American foreign policy is conducted in cycles reminiscent more of lynch parties than of town meetings, and why the suspicioun of the manipulation of the worst impulses in American culture by an unaccountable foreign policymaking elite is a good hypothesis.

38

Sid the Fish 02.01.05 at 5:43 pm

You’ll find some good examples in this Google search.

39

Eric 02.01.05 at 5:53 pm

Notice how the pro-war bandwagon sidesteped the real meat of my post.

Have we gone so far back as to beleive that the end justifies the means? Sure, torture can probably produce information that cannot be gotten through legal means, but does that mean that it’s use is morally justifiable? Try as you may Totrture, Unprovoked first strike, and terrorist actions against civilian targets cannot be morally justified no matter how hard you try.

You are saying that Bush’s lie not really a lie because he weasled out of saying speficics. Even if that were true when clinton did the same thing over a simple marital affair republicans spent some $40 MILLION dollars investigating clinton’s “lie”. But in this case, as others have noted, Bush said that he knew specifics and there was an immeninent threat of attack.

40

abb1 02.01.05 at 6:24 pm

The “bomb for democracy” group of useful idiots is not too large. There aren’t too many people whose ideology combines radical internationalism and American exceptionalism. It really is a small minority.

An average pro-war American knows exactly why the US is there – to kill some Arabs. It’s not that complicated. This sentiment is described nicely in June 4, 2003 Thomas Friedman’s column:

The “real reason” for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn’t enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things “martyrs” was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such “martyrs” was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world.[…] If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

So, please, shut up about ‘democracy’ and carry on with the killing and dying for the beautiful US supremacy.

41

mw 02.01.05 at 6:37 pm

Sure, torture can probably produce information that cannot be gotten through legal means, but does that mean that it’s use is morally justifiable?

This is often discussed in the abstract — what if you catch somebody who knows where the ticking nuclear bomb is hidden?

But it’s not really abstract–the Iraqi and coalition forces *have* caught various of Zarqawi’s deputies recently and it appears that information extracted from them has made it possible to catch more of them. Did they give this information willingly, do you thinkg? Zarqawi’s organization hacks off heads on camera, blows up wedding parties, has declared the idea of democracy itself to be against Islam, is a sworn ally of Bin Laden — well, we all know the litany.

Now, what should be done somebody known to work closely with Zarqawi is captured? Is it morally justifiable to allow the attacks this terrorist may have planned to go forward even though they might be prevented?

Note–I’m not trying to be a smartass–I don’t have a good answer.

42

Uncle Kvetch 02.01.05 at 6:48 pm

In plain English: they lied, repeatedly.

Yep. And Kevin’s only talking about the WMDs. Don’t forget the nonexistent Saddam-9/11 linkage that the administration skillfully manipulated (always with plausible deniability, of course), and which was, for much of American public opinion, the “real” reason for the war.

43

mw 02.01.05 at 6:56 pm

“No, Bush did not lie. The Bushies thought there were WMDs.”

Will we ever hear the end of this drivel? Yes, the Bushies thought there were WMDs. If the Bushies had said “We think there are WMDs” that would have been a truthful statement. What they actually said, in various ways, was “We know there are WMDs”.

BS. The Bush admin didn’t just ‘have a hunch’ that there were WMDs, they believed it, they thought they had evidence that proved it–in short, they knew it (or thought they did). And they were hardly alone — shall I dig up the appropriate John Kerry quotes for you circa, oh say, 1998?

This ‘Bush lied’ mantra is just silly. (But I’m sure we’re going to keep hearing it anyway).

44

abb1 02.01.05 at 7:29 pm

Mw, the directive to stop defending WMD lies has been distributed long time ago. This has always been a humanitarian mission, democracy promotion. You’re distorting the party line and this is a serious thoughtcrime, I am sorry to say.

45

Kevin Donoghue 02.01.05 at 8:51 pm

Yes, MW, get on message. In the revised history, Rummy never said that he knew Saddam had chemical weapons. He never said he knew where they were. Condi said nothing about mushroom clouds. Bush’s SOTU speech said nothing about stockpiles of bio weapons.

It is all a nasty librul rumour. They never said those things, so do not encourage people to think they did by repeating last year’s mantra.

It is no longer operative, geddit? It went down the memory hole never to return.

Pathetic.

46

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 9:19 pm

Some people just wanted revenge for 9/11 and Iraq was a convenient target, but I don’t think this was the majority.

I’ve seen polling that indicates that for the last decade a majority of Americans were consistently in favour of regime change in Iraq. Bill Clinton even made that official US policy in 1998.

And I think this was based on two facts:

1. Saddam was the worst dictator on the planet.

2. He could be overthrown by American military might with some sort of a reasonable cost-benefit balance (unlike North Korea).

As for all this talk about lying. Bush emphasised the danger, he pointed out that Saddam was hiding something.

But he jolly well knew, and said so, that Saddam did not yet have nuclear bombs, and that from a national security stand point the strike was pre-emptive, ie made before the enemy could acquire the means to defend himself effectively. He argued that waiting until one knew for certain (like we do with Pakistan and unlike North Korea, where there is merely strong suspicion) would mean waiting until it was too late and action couldn’t be taken any longer.

These are all reasonable points, the fact that Saddam didn’t have large stocks of chemical and biological weapons at the time of liberation, as we thought he would, is not all that salient to the pro-war argument.

Suppose he had had a thousand tons of sarin. Whatever extra justification that would have given, would have been balanced up by the extra risk this represented during an attack. So for the pro-war argument, the existence or non-existence of these stocks is a wash as far as I am concerned.

His not coming clear about his stocks, however, clearly was one more argument in favour of removing him.

And as far as I am concerned by far the strongest argument at any rate all along, and the reason I (and I think the majority of Americans, barring evidence to the contrary) favoured the decision was that a brutal dictator could be removed at reasonable cost/benefit, when no other action would do.

47

Heiko Gerhauser 02.01.05 at 9:30 pm

The President has been saying the right things about torture:
It’s wrong.

He’s been abysmal at getting the public relations right, also over Guantanamo bay.

If there was good reason to believe those people would continue to fight within Afghanistan or elsewhere, why not have the Afghani government hold them?

And on torture and the Geneva Conventions, of course, unlawful combatants aren’t covered. They aren’t parties to the convention and therefore don’t enjoy its protections.

However, why the need for all this legalism that needlessly has made people suspicious?

48

Eric 02.01.05 at 10:05 pm

How do you prove a negative? Imagine the police come knocking on your door and demand that you allow yourself and your house to be searched for drugs you don’t have. Imagine the police chief insisting that you have drugs even if you don’t. How do you prove you don’t have something? Yes, he may have been upset, even cagy… woudn’t you?

Inspections… inspections that Sadam was allowing to continue and had found NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. The inspectors were told to leave not by Sadam, but by the US govt.

Prove to me that you have no drugs in your house in the next 5 minutes or i’ll burn it down and build a new one. Don’t people understand how ludicrious that sounds?

49

mw 02.01.05 at 10:17 pm

Mw, the directive to stop defending WMD lies has been distributed long time ago. This has always been a humanitarian mission, democracy promotion. You’re distorting the party line and this is a serious thoughtcrime, I am sorry to say.

Yes, in fact it always *was* about many things, WMDs, democracy promotion, regime change (regime change was, you’ll recall, the official US government position…under the Clinton admin). The text of revelvant pre war speeches emphasizing non-WMD factors are readily available. But anti-war types sure have a hard time wrapping their minds around such complexity. Instead insist, over and over ad nauseum, that was all about WMDs and *only* WMDs (except, of course, when it was about oil and *only* about oil).

Pathetic.

50

eric 02.01.05 at 11:53 pm

mw: Regime change is also the stated policy against several dictatorships, Iraq was urgent because they posed an imminent threat to the US population. This was a lie, a proven lie. Without this imminent threat, they are just like many other soverign countries that we dissaprove of.

And on torture and the Geneva Conventions, of course, unlawful combatants aren’t covered. They aren’t parties to the convention and therefore don’t enjoy its protections.

b*lls**t ether these people are covered by the geneva convention or they are citizens of some country. The government ether needs to treat them as POW’s or turn them over to the appropriate authorities in their home country. Lack of a home country, also, does not give the government the right to treat them like criminals.

51

Abhishiktananda 02.01.05 at 11:54 pm

MW:
>>But anti-war types sure have a hard time wrapping their minds around such complexity. Instead insist, over and over ad nauseum, that was all about WMDs and only WMDs (except, of course, when it was about oil and only about oil).
>>
Indeed, removing tyrants and promoting democracies are noble endeavors. The concern I always had about that was whether the costs were worth it (our soldiers’ lives, innocent Iraqi lives, power vaccuum, inflamed anti-American sentiment in an unstable region, etc). To that end, I am hopeful for a positive outcome in the region, even still.

However, you seem to dismiss the justifiable criticisms of the administration in the way it trumped up the WMD claims, or at least was extremely reckless with what it should have seen as somewhat dubious claims about those weapons. There is also the issue of the incessant efforts to link Saddam and Al-Qaeda that have failed to materialize as legitimate arguments, as well as the very legitimate criticisms of the pre and post-war expectations and planning by the DoD and White House.

Does this undermine the Iraqi endeavor? Not necessarily, as Bush can still salvage our effort if Democracy takes hold and brings about positive change. However, it is fair to ask whether the public would have accepted the casus belli of “regime change” and “nation-building” without the now-known-to-be-exaggerated claims of WMD?

52

Abhishiktananda 02.02.05 at 12:04 am

MW:
>>But anti-war types sure have a hard time wrapping their minds around such complexity. Instead insist, over and over ad nauseum, that was all about WMDs and only WMDs (except, of course, when it was about oil and only about oil).
>>
Indeed, removing tyrants and promoting democracies are noble endeavors. The concern I always had about that was whether the costs were worth it (our soldiers’ lives, innocent Iraqi lives, power vaccuum, inflamed anti-American sentiment in an unstable region, etc). To that end, I am hopeful for a positive outcome in the region, even still.

However, you seem to dismiss the justifiable criticisms of the administration in the way it trumped up the WMD claims, or at least was extremely reckless with what it should have seen as somewhat dubious claims about those weapons. There is also the issue of the incessant efforts to link Saddam and Al-Qaeda that have failed to materialize as legitimate arguments, as well as the very legitimate criticisms of the pre and post-war expectations and planning by the DoD and White House.

Does this undermine the Iraqi endeavor? Not necessarily, as Bush can still salvage our effort if Democracy takes hold and brings about positive change. However, it is fair to ask whether the public would have accepted the casus belli of “regime change” and “nation-building” without the now-known-to-be-exaggerated claims of WMD?

53

Doctor Slack 02.02.05 at 12:58 am

Yes, in fact it always was about many things, WMDs, democracy promotion, regime change . . .

Yes, a rotating battery of things, depending on whatever was most convenient at the moment. “Anti-war types” didn’t have trouble wrapping our heads around the complexity, we had trouble believing this ever-spinning carousel of bullshit was being offered in good faith. People tend to remember WMD most now, of course, because Bush settled on it as his primary official reason for starting the war.

I don’t share John’s tacit assumption that these elections were “successful,” by the way, except by the minimal criterion that they weren’t totally swamped by insurgent attacks; they’re less of a step toward “democracy” than Iran’s elections in 2002 were, for example. So, I’m not holding out much hope that they’ll make a huge difference — gotta say threads like this remind me of similar threads on “turning points” like the transfer of “sovereignty,” the capture of Saddam, et cetera.

54

Andrew Boucher 02.02.05 at 6:06 am

The President has been saying the right things about torture:
It’s wrong.

Good for him! Now if he would just do the right things, e.g. hold accountable those – and I mean all of them, including the managers who formulated the policy – responsible.

55

Joe 02.02.05 at 11:16 am

“a lot of triumphalism about the success of the elections”. I guess they haven’t been reading their old copies of the New York Times, say 4 September 1967: “”United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.” – Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, ‘U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,’

56

Nell Lancaster 02.02.05 at 9:21 pm

slightly OT but a response to heiko gerhauser’s comment: it?s severely misleading and wrong to blame use of aerial weaponry for most death in Iraq

I would be more inclined to take this assertion seriously if we had any real idea how much and what kind of bombing is going on. My concern is that U.S. planes are dropping huge numbers of huge, civilian-flattening bombs on Sunni population centers, and that we will only find out the extent of this campaign much further down the road.

57

Heiko Gerhauser 02.02.05 at 10:40 pm

Hi Nell,

If you check through the comments section on the issue of the Lancet study, you’ll find that this issue has been discussed in great depth.

Firstly, the coalition says it is doing its utmost to avoid collateral damage and that there is no indiscriminate bombing going on.

All right, they might be lying through their teeth.

And the Iraqi government, which publishes numbers of civilians (their numbers may include some insurgents and terrorists) and Iraqi security forces killed in military and terrorist activity, would, of course, also have to lie.

However, insurgents or those sympathetic to their cause have every reason to pass reports about every single bombing causing civilian loss of life onto the media. And these media reports, even taking virtually everything that gets reported by stringers sympathetic to insurgents or terrorists at face value just don’t add up to tens of thousands of deaths from bombing.

Finally, outside of Fallujah the Lancet relies on three reported incidents, one in which 2 children and a woman died, another with 2 child deaths and a third being the death of a man from aerial weaponry.

There is no way these three incidents can be reliably extrapolated to all of Iraq.

Comments on this entry are closed.