The recent, gratuitous blood-libel insults leveled against our fighting men and women by the assassin of the left, the Canadian crank Michael Tee, have given me occasion for this seemingly innumerable time to try to fix my bearings on what is right and just for our mission in Iraq, if not what is realistically possible -- the key question at that. I start from the proposition that the invasion should never have been launched for it failed (in the retrospective scrutiny) the key, sine qua non aspect spurring invasion: the presence of WMD. (Importantly, at the time the "go" order was given, there is a great lacuna in the data on the bona fides of the various principals, up to and including President Bush himself. Yet, necessarily, theories swirl around the principals' intent: pristinely good faith (unlikely), negligent, reckless, malevolent. I settle for reasons of common sense (not to be elaborated here further) on the "middle intents," negligent or reckless, given the entire panorama of the problem and the solemn duties involved.) The possession of workable, deliverable WMD's coupled with the intent and ability to do us harm in that way (any other way of harming us, such as a hypothetical amphibious assault on our beaches, say, would not satisfy the stringent criteria for a consensus use of a preemptive strike). The connections to terrorists in any demonstrably operational way, which was feared to be the most likely method of delivery of WMD-harm, also did not withstand scrutiny. And, of course, the direct link between Iraq and 911, stumbled over repeatedly, simply had no substance.
Yet, the critics claiming a rape of Iraq have been muted (given that potential charge) because the eddy of actual facts was stirrred by the soul-wrenching fears of a great nation and the neo-con pre-set template (employed by people duly elected partly on that basis) of keenly desiring a transformative event in the Middle East preferably through the means of the overthrow of Saddam and the planting a freer, more Western-friendly government.
As I see it, at the time the order was given to attack, the case for war against Iraq was a close one. Arrayed next to the "legal requisite" items identified in the last two paragraphs, adding heft and impetus if not validity on their own, there existed the matter of UN Resolution 1441 (and the minor but existing question of whether a constituent state could enforce on its own a Security Council resolution), the "continuing state of war, or absence of peace," since the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqi practice of periodically attacking our aircraft enforcing the lawful no-fly zone, Saddam's open cheerleading and financial support of terrorists and their families, Saddam's being the leading occupant of the Muslim bully-pulpit at least indirectly stoking hatred of the US (and presumably encouraging its actual, physical enemies), the yawning need for something dramatic and decisive in the Middle East to stop the swing of popular sentiment and institutional support for a radicalism quickly being deployed to destroy and "reclaim" much of the Muslim world, if not all of it, and to eliminate through a thousand cuts or a few big calamities the Great Satan, the US.
No, the invasion, overthrow of Saddam and installation of a new government accompanied by a necessary occupation was not the cause of our great national heartache, it was the mismanagement of the endgame of the invasion and the entirety of the occupation, which flowed from terrible lapses in leadership. Had things gone as anticipated (who was handing out the orse-colored glasses?), we simply would not be questioning let alone protesting what (through those rose-colored glasses) could have been a boon to every decent person concerned, and prominently us. As it was, refleccting prescient pre-war assessments such as Sen. Kennedy's, a guerilla opposition developed and flourished, internal political wrangling accentuated, not modulated, differences, fighting raged in the streets, the government was singularly ineffectual, and the death toll rose among innocent Iraqis and the American servicemen, the salt of the earth who answered a noble call to duty only to be met by a maelstrom, which they neither created nor anticipated.
But now we're there. The politics of the matter as it is poised just now has it just about right. The president, despite his "stay the course" basic orientation, is finally -- at the point where he has little choice, but only to the extent he is forced -- is making some concessions as to benchmarks and renewed pressure on the Iraqi government. This is occurring as a consequence of Congressional pressure, but a pressure that will fall short of the Legislature "pulling the trigger," that is, defunding the war, because that step subjects them to catastrophic political liability should things go South in a hurry after withdrawal. It's better for them -- and for us -- to move in increments, shooting for if not attaining a consensus, than risk having th whole thing really go to hell in a handbasket during a timeout they called themselves.
