Surfing the blogs and reading the usual suspects in the usual propaganda outlets, I get the impression that the war hawks have settled on a response to the WMD snipe hunt fiasco and the broken promise of democracy fiasco. This is to respond to every bit of bad news -- and every new sign of the administration's bad faith -- by snarling the question: "Well, would you have left Saddam in power?"
This is the right-wing question de jour because they believe it puts opponents of the war in an impossible position. Say "yes," and it doesn't matter what else you say, the attack machine has you in its cross hairs. Say "no," and the obvious response is "so what you are bitching about?"
It's a clever tactic -- in a cheap, Mayberry Machiavelli sort of way. The kind of thing Grover Norquist and his storm troopers might think up at their little lunches and pass along to the RNC and its mouthpieces at Fox News.
But it's only a short-term fix, because the mess in Iraq is now the sole property of George W. Bush and the U.S. military. Saddam is gone, if not forgotten, and constantly reminding the world of his evil ways can only obscure the utter incompetence of our Iraq adventure for so long.
The truth is that what's coming down the road in Iraq is going to make the old "containment" policy seem like a wet dream. And asking a bunch of powerless liberals what they would have done instead isn't going to cut much ice with the American people once they finally realize what a nightmare they've been dragged into.
But, since I'm not running for office and have no journalistic reputation left to protect, I'll answer the hawks' question: Yes, I would have left Saddam in power.
- Because at the end of the day, having a brutal but aging dictator sitting in a box in Baghdad would have been far safer for U.S. national security -- and the health and welfare of the Iraqi people -- than the bloody chaos we have unleashed.
- Because booting Saddam back into the criminal underground resurrected not one of his previous victims, and added another 4,000 names or so to the list of casualties -- and that doesn't include the thousands or hundreds of thousands more who will die in the insanity to come.
- Because whatever chance Iraq had to eventually emerge from Baathist dictatorship into some less horrific form of government has been blown. The only options now are Lebanon-style chaos or an expensive, bloody U.S. occupation -- followed by Lebanon-style chaos once we finally give up and withdraw.
- Because without self-defense or proof of an imminent threat as justification, the United States did not have anything close to the color of the law to back its aggression. America has destroyed its own crediblity, the credibility of the United Nations and the credibility of international law to pursue the necons' silly dream of "remaking" the Middle East. I hope the hawks can remember that when some other country -- India? China? Russia? -- launches its own "preemptive war" against a smaller, weaker country.
- Because we are now hated and feared as never before in most corners of the world. And if you think that doesn't matter, just wait until the next terrorist atttack on the United States, when the sound we hear from the rest of the world isn't words of sympathy or solidarity, but sullen silence -- or cheering.
At some point, the American people are going to realize just how isolated we've become in the world -- outside the small circle of bureaucrats, kleptocrats and oil sheiks who do our bidding in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. And I don't know how they're going to react. But given the ignorance, racism and blind trust in the U.S. government I see reflected every day -- in both the real and cyber worlds -- I don't want to think about the possibilities.
Bottom line: The conservatives, their beloved president and his neocon revolutionaries have made an ENORMOUS mistake -- of the kind that keep historians busy arguing for decades: How could they have done something so stupid? It's the March of Folly, heading straight over a cliff.
And shouting, as they topple over the edge:
"BUT WHAT ABOUT SADDAMMMMMM?????????"
The key question is whether the number dead in the war and its aftermath is greater or lesser than what it would have been if Saddam remained in power.
The sanctions regime was killing an estimated 50,000 people a year. The actual war and its aftermath don't even come close to that. Your "hundreds of thousands" prediction seems wildly exaggerated.
If Saddam had been left in power, the only humane thing to do would have been to lift the sanctions. If that had been done, however, he could have started to re-arm, and with that might have engaged in genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and/or Shi'ites. What might the death toll have been then?
Funny you should talk about surfing the blogs. Past couple of nights I've been following links to blogs I've never been to before and run into a couple that go like this "I feel really bad for supporting the war/tax cut/Bush2000/etc. I'm beginning to realize the harm Bush has been causing and I will do whatever it takes to unelect him in 2004." Their comments sections have 5-6 comments from people who say stuff along the lines of "Me too, buddy. I was slow to wake up to what they were doing but now..."
You know, part of me wants to get in there and wring their bloody necks and scream at them for about 2 hours. But it's hard to scream well in pixel.
Between you and me and the bar, I'm not sure if we're the martians or they are.
I thought the bar was kind of weird at first, with those screenplays, but now I really enjoy them.
Then, everybody creamed themselves over that "tangled web" post. It was well-deserved praise, but I also understand your own expression of surprise at the extent of the response.
Now this is the kind of post that makes me love this place.
You really have a gift for cutting the bullsh*t and putting in writing the germ of a thought that was in the back of my mind, but I wasn't really aware of.
Thanks again.
bravo!, billmon.
that's all i have to say.
The conservatives have blown it on Iraq.
Where are the WMD's(technically NBC weapons)which was Bush's main pretext for invasion and conquest?
- None found.
Was the Iraqi Army the fear juggernaught that Bush and Rumsfeld said it was?
- No. We fought a military that had no airforce and crippled ground force.
Where is Saddam? Where is Osama? Where is Mulla Omar?
- Not found for all three.
Are the Iraqi people better off now than under Saddam?
- Problamatical. Standard of living has dropped dramatically since the invasion, lack of basic necessities, include security, medical care and even clean water plague Iraq.
Is Iraq a free country?
- No. Technically we are still at war, ergo Iraq is under U.S. Military jurisdiction not the U.N.
Are the foreign debts Saddam ran up forgiven?
- No. Consequently most of the Iraqi oil profits($320 billon dollars - source LA Times) will go to pay off foreign corporations that did business with Hussein. We are punishing the Iraqi people even after Hussein has been toppled.
BTW our occupation is costing $1 billion a week.
Right as usual, Billmon. Good job.
The rest of the answer to "would you have left Saddam in power?" is
"Is this our new foreign policy? To rescue the oppressed of the world? If so, let's compile a list of trouble spots, and see the Bush White House go to work."
This wasn't about rescuing the poor Iraqis - ironically, I always felt that if it had been, from day one, people would still have gone for it and now there would be almost no downside (for the WH) to say "ok, we're finished here" and go home.
It's the March of Folly, heading straight over a cliff.
Chalk it up to the irrepressible drama geek within, but that made me think of "Beware the Ides of March...". I'm kinda torn, do I warn the Secret Service to look out for guys named Brutus? My moral clarity isn't as clear as your whiskey...
You know, part of me wants to get in there and wring their bloody necks and scream at them for about 2 hours. But it's hard to scream well in pixel.
And hardly effective. vachon, you are a smart woman, and you will probably recognize this as what we call in pediatrics a "teachable moment."
It's a chance to introduce some economic data. Or contrast the No Child Left Behind act with "compassionate conservatism." Maybe a link to Billmon's Litany of Lies. And maybe pointing out that if the Bushies had such a specific laundry list of WMDs, with quantities and everything, why can't they find them now? If they knew exactly how much and all, they must have known where they were, right? It just doesn't add up.
And how many of our guys, and how many thousands of Iraqis died, because of this?
Well, consider the various dictators that the US PUT in power or have supported over the years, and the question about Saddam is something of a fraud.
No surprise.
Folly, as defined by Tuchman's fine book, 'The March of Folly' involves (if I can remember correctly from college history class) pursuing policy contrary to a nation's best interest... advocated by a minority adhering to a set of ideologies... and viewed as a bad idea in its own time. Right on with that one Billmon.
WMD – the bait. They’re gonna get us if we don’t get them now!
Operation Iraqi Freedom –the switch launched with the first bombs.
Hooray Saddam is gone.
Since when is “bait and switch” a mere PR ploy? If I buy and pay for a Jaguar, Ford better not deliver a Contour and tell me it has a better repair record.
There IS an immediate between-the-eyes comeback to the neocon/Norquist false choice over Saddam:
"I would have given him a REAL option: to clear out and save some face. Offered him a few billions to re-settle in a mansion in one or other of many Arabs' favorite watering holes - Geneva, Cairo or Beirut."
This kind of third way is the REAL center of gravity of opinion in Europe - not leaving Saddam in power.
The curtailed UN process was not only a diplomatic disaster. It rates a ten as a negotiation failure.
And coming soon? An eleven over Iran and North Korea...
I've been lurking around here long enough. For a few months now, I've been casually watching and reading. Now, I feel it's time to have a Pulizer Prize for blogging. If I only had the power...
The author of this site, and the contributors are ab-fab. The well thought out points and non-confrontational jargon used help to bring across a point of argument in a way which is strong and confident. I have some conservative friends who I've pointed to a few articles on this site, and they've not been able to weasel out of their previous statements.
Billmon for President!!
But back to the point at hand, I'm happy to see someone thinking about the "nanny-nanny boo-boo" response on these issuses coming from the conservatives. Again, Billmon and the contributors to the comments section have raised the barre, and I for one am glad to have someone doing my thinking for me. *GRIN* (Just kidding...but his eloquence is better than what I would have come up with)
The concern for human rights that is being sold to the public should be a good thing. If the compassion that has suddenly appeared in conservative rhetoric were sincere, if the mainstream right were really bothered by political repression abroad, America would be a better nation.
The trouble is, the sudden outpouring of compassion is not based on an informed discussion of human conditions in Iraq, but on the cartoon bogeyman of Saddam himself. The sweeping superlatives of the 'brutal regime' and its 'murderous dictator' paint an image of Iraq as a living hell so horrible that it couldn't possibly get worse. No matter what we do, no matter how badly we mess up, we're still doing Iraqis a favour, because we got rid of Saddam. The bar by which we are supposed to judge the success of this mission is not just low; there is no bar.
Unfortunately, in the real world, things can always get worse. Despite the brutal treatment of dissidents, typical Iraqi citizens used to enjoy a basic level of personal security. Compared to African warzones, or indeed the new warlordism of Afghanistan, the chances of oneself or one's family meeting a violent end on a given day in Iraq were really very low.
This is not to downplay or apologize for the horrors of the Baath government--these have never been in dispute. But the bleeding heart conservatives who talk so earnestly about the plight of the longsuffering Iraqis must be reminded, again and again, that if the outcome of this war is a Taliban-esque theocracy, or a seething cauldron of factional warfare, or a decade-long guerilla struggle against the occupation, we will have gone into a bad place and made it worse. Saddam or no Saddam.
Your quote strings may have gotten you the mega-hits, but this post exemplafies the sort of writing that first turned on regulars at DKos to the conviction that we wanted to hear more from you and so were delighted to belly up to your new bar. Ottimo, Billmon!
To my conservative friends who demand I view our action in Iraq as some sort of humanitarian intervention, I ask them why there is no large-scale American intervention in the Congo, where millions have died in recent years. The response I almost always get is "the what?"
Billmon: Here's a question for you: If the general public is beginning to wake up now, in early June, about Bush's lies and the coming quagmire we face in Iraq, what do you think things will be like in three months (and unfortunately probably 100 deaths later) during the NYC Repub convention? What Rove thought was a no-brainer scheduling move might turn into his worst nightmare, like firemen on the street protesting Shrub. Waht do you think?
I've been arguing this point until I'm blue in the face over on a thread on Tacitus. (To his credit, only Tac himself even comes close to admitting that this is going to be a huge problem someday.)
Thanks for putting this in a much more eloquent fashion, Bilmon.
Fearless prediction: if this goes on, dig out your old Country Joe and the Fish albums, 'cause the draft will be coming back. My vote is that Rush, Ben Shapiro, and Toby Kieth be among the first draftees.
If the war in Iraq was about the liberation of the Iraqi people then Bush needs to address these issues:
Why did we not have an army of humanitarian aid waiting at the borders?
Why did we not have platoons of soldier-policemen ready to maintain civil stability?
Why did we not have an infantry of engineers waiting to put the country back together?
Why did we not protect the hospitals from looting?
Most of all why didn’t the president have the moral fortitude to say to the American people and to the world that we are going to fight this war to liberate an oppressed people.
In the State of the Union address there are 16 paragraphs and 1,100 words are dedicated to WMD (source: Calpundit) and there are but four short sentences (68 words) that refer to bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.
When asked in his press conference why we are attacking Iraq Bush said "911".
Maybe it’s to much to ask for Prince Harry's speech from The Battle of Agincourt, but certainly a leader should do better than this when his goal is liberating a country.
Thanks for putting it so eloquently, Billmon. From the beginning, I've believed that historians will consider this war one of the great blunders of the modern era.
One thing that Cuba and Iraq have taught us is that economic blockades don't produce revolutions; desperately poor and hungry people don't have the strength to overthrow despots. It's certainly distateful to trade with them, but it's also distasteful to punish their people and give them an outsider to blame their problems on.
I've thought about the question of "what would you have done" as well. I would have used the concern over terrorism and Iraq to establish an international nuclear weapons control program with teeth -- if a country is shown to have pursued nuclear weapons, they would be subject to intrusive inspections indefinitely. But of course, that would require an administration with a belief in international law and treaties...
Slightly off-topic, I know, but given the inspiration for Billmon's site name, and the steady stream of American deaths (yes, each Iraqi death is an equal loss to Gaia), it seems like a good moment to review Brecht's "Wife of the Soldier"...
What did the wife of the soldier get
From the ancient city of Prague?
From Prague she got the linen shirt
It matched her skirt did the linen shirt
That she got from the city of Prague
What did the wife of the soldier get
From Brussels, the Belgian town?
From Brussels she got the delicate lace
Oh! the charm and the grace of the delicate lace
That she got from the Belgian town
What did the wife of the soldier get
From Paris, the city of light?
From Paris she got the silken dress
Oh! to possess the silken dress
That she got from the city of light
What did the wife of the soldier get
From Libya's desert sands?
From Libya the little charm
Around her arm she wore the charm
That she got from the desert sands
What did the wife of the soldier get
From Russia's distant steppes?
From Russia she got the widow's veil
And the end of the tale is the widow's veil
That she got from the distant steppes
Now we need a new verse along the lines of...
What did the wife of the Neocon get
From Baghdad's poisoned ground?
From Baghdad she got cheap fossil fuel
An uneven duel for the fossil fuel
She got from the poisoned ground
What Rove thought was a no-brainer scheduling move might turn into his worst nightmare, like firemen on the street protesting Shrub. Waht do you think?
Oh, it's worse that that, Jeff: the convention isn't for another year and three months. Plenty of time for Iraq to brew up.
Fearless prediction: if this goes on, dig out your old Country Joe and the Fish albums, 'cause the draft will be coming back.
They'll move heaven and earth to prevent it, because they know the quickest way to squelch the lastest media fad (conservatism on campus)would be to bring back the draft.
Actually, they're kind of sort of bringing it back already. The Washington Monthly had an article a few months ago that talked about how the Pentagon has been slapping "stop loss" on various critical occupational specialities, which means, essentially, that soldiers in those slots can't get out -- they HAVE to re-enlist, until the Army tells 'em they can go.
Bet you didn't know they could do that, huh? I didn't either until I read the article.
Okiebyaccident, thanks for the Brecht. It fits.
Yeah, I knew it was a year & three months, but it was definitely Freudian wish-fulfillment -- wanting to get in on in NYC as fast as possible.
The Bush administration is a big fraud. Remember WorldCom, Enron? The stupid citizens of america should wake up before its too late.
We are really in the last days...
I do hope the American people will soon wake up to this rampage of fools. To the extent that your work contributes to their awareness, Billmon, you are to be commended.