"The March of Folly" in Iraq
About 25 years ago, the eminent historian Barbara W. Tuchman wrote a best-selling book entitled "The March of Folly--from Troy to Vietnam." Tuchman, who died in 1989, noted that one of the great paradoxes of history is that governments often mindlessly pursue policies that actually clash with their own national interests.
She cited, for example, how Britain's King George III repeatedly alienated his American colonies with excessive taxation, made rebels where there had been none, disregarded rising discontent, and forfeited control of the North American continent.
Similarly, Tuchman explored our nation's 35-year involvement in Vietnam, beginning with President Roosevelt's endorsement of French colonial rule. She argued that the Cold War-inspired domino theory raised the stakes, and described President Lyndon Johnson's insistence on military victory as "benighted." The result, she wrote, was a "final uneasy escape" and the loss of essential trust in government.
If Tuchman were alive today, she could have added the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 as the latest episode of governmental folly. The justification for the war has changed so many times that it's hard to keep up. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. Nor did the invasion bolster the essential war on terrorism or make the U.S. more secure.
Instead, it has turned Iraq into a breeding ground and training center for Islamic terrorism, accentuated international hatred of the U.S., and inspired a new generation of jihadis eager and willing to fight us. And yet the war's advocates dare charge that those who objected to the Iraq invasion are opposing the war on terrorism.
Proponents of the war now excitedly claim that democracy is being introduced into Iraq, as demonstrated by the big turnout of voters in the recent parliamentary election. The problem is that you don't export democracy. You export machine tools and airplanes and soy beans and corn.
It is premature to boast about the democratization of Iraq. The sectarian and ethnic barriers are formidable, and the odds are not favorable for genuine success. Moreover, to contend that the U.S. would necessarily benefit by the spread of democracy in Iraq to the rest of the Middle East is ludicrous. If there were free and open elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two autocratic countries friendly to the U.S., the victors in both would undoubtedly be radical Islamists violently opposed to our presence in the Middle East.
The post-World War II democratic successes in Germany and Japan are not analagous to the situation in Iraq, as the Bush Administration likes to argue. Germany and Japan had homogeneous populations, were more advanced industrially, and had formally surrended after harsh military defeats.
But the basic issue is this: In the unlikely event that our objectives are realized in Iraq and that the country is turned into a stable working democracy, was it worth the many thousands of American troops killed and maimed and the expenditure of an estimated trillion dollars or more?
I think not.
posted by Mortart at 4:16 PM
20 Comments:
But the basic issue is this: In the unlikely event that our objectives are realized in Iraq and that the country is turned into a stable working democracy, was it worth the many thousands of American troops killed and maimed and the expenditure of an estimated trillion dollars or more?
I think not.
Agreed. It would have been much better to have allowed those people who were being slaughtered by Mr. Hussein, both at his own hand and by the terrorists he financially supported throughout the Middle East, to continue to be tortured and murdered, so that we could have continued to ignorantly claim that we were safe and sound here in our nice, little cocoon. After all, haven't the numerous attacks against our interests around the world and here at home over the last 3 decades really only been one-off aberrations?
One correction to your comments, however, if you don't mind. It has never been stated by anyone in this administration that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Unless you can show a legitimate source for any statement to this effect, please refrain from propagating this lie any further.
Thank you.
Steve N.
You are RIGHT ON!
This summary from the www.americanprogress website does a great job of summarizing the administrations statements about Iraq being an imminent threat to the U.S.
In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat
January 29, 2004
The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03
"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03
"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
"Well, of course he is.”
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question “is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03
"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02
"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02
"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02
"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02
"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02
"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
I applaud you, your post/blog, and mindset of this situation that our country is in. You eloquantly put into type what so many want to say and have said, but get squashed down by republicans.
I couldn't agree with you more.
Have a great day!
Deb
Thank you for your post on the war. If our government and our people could approach this situation with the same level headed approach you've taken, our country would be better for it.
I'd also like to thank the anonymous source who took the time to find those quotes from the current administration. I'm glad you're reading this blog Steve N. Hopefully you'll learn something.
I find your courageous stance honourable, as I can imagine the atmosphere in your country to be intimidating towards people with your views. Many of us here in the UK share your distaste for the tragedy our countries have brought to Iraq.
You mention the thousands of American lives lost in this illegal war: please do not forget the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have also perished as a direct result of the actions of our military personnel. Maybe we should not blame our soldiers, but the politicians who continue to pursue this war which has brought shame to our nations.
Good luck, and thanks again!
Colin
Yes, and Roosevelt entered WW II under false pretenses and faulty intelligence as well didn't he hmmm??? So you were an illegal invader as well then. You're a disgrace to this country. Stick to your heart warming bleeding heart stories. They read better than your worn out leftist lines you trot out every time someone decides to have the guts to stand up to evil. Good thing our leaders were in charge 60 years ago and not you.
Bill:
Yes, I've been reading the posts. And responded. However, it seems that my post was not acceptable to the moderator and was deleted. I can't imagine the reason, as I did not use profanity or personal attacks. I simply stated an opposing point of view, backed up by quotes and facts.
Again, I found it very interesting that a) after the accusation of Republicans attempting to silence dissension, my response to anonymous was not deemed fit for posting and b) the anonymous poster was seemingly unable to find any quotes from those on the left which were virtually identical to those quotes posted here from the right.
In case anyone is interested, here is a link to some of the quotes to which I refer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1051684/posts
Here's my favorite:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Dr. Bud:
Nice try. And thank you for not addressing the actual content of my posts and, instead, chose to respond with an ad hominem attack.
You have certainly proven yourself to be a master debater.
Hussein was a madman, and one with significant financial resources. How anyone could view him as non-threatening is beyond me. Certainly the families of the countless thousands of people he slaughtered (or allowed his sons to rape) would view him as a threat. What's a shame is that so few world leaders were willing to come to their defense.
How about how many terrorist incidents we've on on US soil since the invasion. One would think that an octogenarian would have learned more from history than is apparent here. The number of lives lost in the wars/conflicts mentioned is significantly higher than those that have been lost this time. Losing one life is tragic, but freedom does not come without a price and there is freedom in an area where it did not exist before. Just ask the majority of the Iraqi people!
Dr:
I reviewed the Democrats' quotes on the site to which Steve linked. Two things are apparent: (1) Most of the quotes come from 1998 and were being put forth to justify missile and air strikes against facilities, not war;
So? They very clearly stated almost the exact same thing that the Republicans were saying re: the threat from Iraq, except that only those mean, evil Republicans are lying, right? You can’t have it both ways.
Besides, if they were so adamant about what kind of threat we faced from Iraq in 1998, then it almost criminally negligent that all they did was lob a couple of missiles and move on. Yet you want to call Bush’s team incompetent because they actually are engaged in trying to resolve the problem for good, and not just score a few political points when needed.
(2) most of the rest occurred in 2002 and after, when everyone was being fed the same disinformation from Bush's CIA. And I say "disinformation" instead of "misinformation" because the Downing Street memo made it abundantly clear that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal was determined to have a war regardless of the facts.
In other words, the information that the previous administration had was good enough to justify launching missiles into another country, but suddenly when the other side starts saying the same thing, especially in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it’s “disinformation.” Wow.
And “Bush’s CIA” did this? Incredible how Bush was so brilliant that he had the CIA gathering this evidence even before he ever ran for President! And you want to call him stupid.
And, just for the record, the Downing Street memo was yet another in a long string of flame-outs when attempting to attack the Bush administration. It has been clearly defined to be the exact opposite of what many on the left want it to be, by those who were there.
We haven't had any meteor strikes, ice ages, or Bengals victories in the playoffs, either. Terrorists take their own sweet time, and will strike again when they're ready.
Just so you know, we have been hit by meteors during Bush’s Presidency. http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2003/meteors_galore.html
However, some things you can do something about, some things you can’t.
And Bush's policies have made such an attack more likely rather than less so
This is your opinion. You have absolutely no basis in fact to support this comment. My opinion is the exact opposite of yours, yet I do not present my opinion as fact.
--spending national security money on pork barrel projects, not securing ports, turning Iraq into a boot camp for terrorist-wannabes.
I certainly can’t argue with you here. I would love to see spending reduced. And as for the terrorists racing to their Iraqi boot camp? Good. Rather have them there than here.
The federal non-response to Katrina shows just how vulnerable we all are and will be for a long time.
Let’s stay on topic, shall we?
Although I commend you and honor you for your service during one of our country's greatest time of need, I am saddened by the lack of perspective I had assumed you would have possessed from the experience.
I find it amusing that those that claim this is a Republican-only action have a convenient lack of memory of when the Democrats were calling for the same thing.
Then there are those poor fools who believe that if we just talk to the terrorists and try to understand their view a little better then everything will be alright. Those are the types of people who, if allowed to be in positions of power, scare the hell out of me.
Am I having a conversation with Dr. Bud or Dr. Dean?
You assume that all of the suggestions you make are not being attempted. Why? Do you honestly believe that Bush’s team is not also using diplomatic channels to work with countries like Saudi Arabia to enlist their help in this cause? What is your basis for this belief, other than a complete distrust of this administration? Again, you seem to only want to believe what fits into your pre-established opinions and refuse to recognize that the threat we face was and is real and we simply disagree on the process.
Has everything gone perfectly in Iraq? Of course not. But anyone who has any understanding of the history of warfare knows that no one can plan for every eventuality. The best laid plans become virtually useless once combat has begun. But, as I mentioned earlier, in the wake of 9/11 a choice had to be made to either continue with the same old ineffectual saber-rattling and half-hearted diplomacy to deal with these problems or, instead, actually pull the saber out of the scabbard and defend our country from any and all threats. To not have done so would have solidified our image as a paper tiger with our enemies and we would have lost any ability to negotiate with anyone from a position of power.
This is not a “war for oil!” or “another Vietnam” or even an attempt by the evil Republican “cabal” to take over the world. These kinds of baseless and contrived comments do nothing to support your position. For you to simply repeat “Bush lied!” and ignore all of the evidence to the contrary basically proves to me that to continue this discussion with you is a complete waste of time.
EEEYAWW!!! Oops-- Excuse me-- My Dean persona took over there for a minute. Which reminds me, the problem with my Democratic Party is all the nutcases at the top, not to mention the wackos in Hollywood giving us a bad name. Heck, the GOP could run Tom Delay or Satan himself (redundant, I know) and win, with the yokels the Dems keep trotting out. Anyway, back to the thread:
I'm sure Bush is trying to get Saudi Arabia to help in the standard, wimpy ways, but what I have in mind is cutting off the flow of terrorists by shutting down their breeding grounds, the schools (madrassahs) indoctrinating them with anti-Americanism. The Saudi family fears the mullahs and won't do it. Bush needs to turn the screws a little tighter on those boys, and that's what he's not doing.
The war in Iraq IS just rattling sabers. After 9/11, the terrorists were in Afghanistan, so we should have stayed there until we wiped them out, not diverted most of our troops to Iraq. Simple as that.
Well, in 10 years, when we're still in Iraq, still getting GIs killed, tell me it's not Viet Nam.
It IS a war for oil, in the sense that Wofowitz and Rumsfeld have this notion that creating Democracy in Iraq will make sure the spigot doesn't get turned off. Going after terrorists is secondary. And all objective accounts indicate there were far fewer terrorists before we invaded than there are now.
You really need to get out more. Or at least read something besides Neocon propaganda once in awhile. I don't hate Bush; I just think he's dead wrong and that his errors are making us less rather than more safe.
Hmmm. I see America's military interference has once again polarised not only Americans, but others as well. Here's one Canadian's view:
War is wrong. Killing is wrong. Bush is wrong. And all his political posturing, lying, and patriotic rhetoric about "freedom" is not going to change that.
Thanks for a great post. Peace.
[i]"War is wrong."[/i]
I've seen people make statements like that before, but can't quite figure out what they mean. Does this mean that fighting in a war to take down Hitler's regime is wrong? Does it mean there's NOTHING worth fighting for, or worth going to war over?
112czW The best blog you have!
6moueT write more, thanks.
I hope terrorism will be stopped. It is hard to have this. The world is about to end, I hope love and peace will reign.
Post a Comment
<< Home