DISQUS

There are a number of things wrong with Feith's post hoc justification of the invasions and explanation of why "If only they had taken my advise, all would have been well" Webrand actually highlights these flaws in his attempted defense of Feith.

1) The Adminstration SAID it was invading because there were weapons of mass destruction. It never said it was invading because there were materials from which Iraq could make weapons of mass destruction and give them to our enemies. Why didn't we say that before the invasion, instead of making this claim only when our public claims proved to be completely and utterly false?

2) If we invaded because we feared that Saddam was about to give WMD to terrorists, how could the brief invasion now claimed by Feith prevent that? The reason we had long supported Saddam was that he was surpressing the anti-American Shiite majority. In the absence of occupying American troops, no government friendly to the US can govern Iraq. If and when we leave, there will be a terrorist--friendly government (probably allied with Iran) in Iraq. This government will be motivated to help terrorists.

3) Consistent with #2, Feith admits that creating a democracy in Iraq was not the goal. However, contrary to Feith's claim, democracy was not a hoped-for "ancillary benefit". The US has long supported undemocratic governments in Epypt and Saudi Arabia because democratically-elected governments in these countries would be anti-American. We supported Saddam for this same reason and the Shah of Iran as well. (No one would describe the current Iran as a functioning democracy, but its government is more reflective of popular sentiment than are the governments of most of our allies in the Middle East and much more so than the Shah's brutal dictatorship which we strongly supported for many years.) Since our invasion of Iraq, it is well documented that we have attempted, through a variety of means, to influence the elections in that country in ways which, if some country attempted to do to us, would end diplomatic relations.

4) Feith and Webrand's argument that a similar plan in Afghanistan was a "success" is quite revealing. Like Iraq, we claimed that we invaded Afghanistran because our "negotiations" with their government failed to get us what we wanted--in this case, having Osama bin Laden and the rest of his criminal gang turned over to us. Of course, these negotiation were preposterous since, despite years of occupation, WE have not been able to capture or kill Osama or most of his followers. If we couldn't do this over a period of years, how did we expect the Afghanistan government to do so in the short time we gave them? In good faith negotiations, you ask the other side to do something that they actually have the power to do.

5)Since our invasion, many (most?) things in Afghanistan has gotten worse. For example, prior to our invastion, the Taliban had virtually eliminated the poppy/opium business. Now they have reversed course and are using it to support their insurgency. It is the largest cash crop. If our invasion of Afghanistan was such a success, then why are we still there and why are both presidential candidates arguing that we have to send more troops? (Obama and others have suggested that we could have succeeded in Afghanistan if only we hadn't pulled resources out in order to invade Iraq. Whatever its merits, I don't suppose Feith will be making this argument.)

6) Well there is an answer to all of these questions. The goal of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was long-term American control of these countries. While a brief invasion could not prevent the creation of a terrorist-friendly government in Iraq, long-term occupation might. Similarly, the surge can be viewed as a success if the goal was to reduce the insurgency to the point that Americans would stop complaining about the loss of American life and put up with the (hopefully reduced) costs of a permanent occupying force.

7) The Bush Administration has long claimed that we should ignore sentimentaly rhetoric and claims of good intentions and deal with the harsh realities of the world as they really are. Now that their policies have made all of those realities worse, they are writing books like Feith's in which they beg us to judge them on their good intentions. They meant well. Unfortunately, for Feith and his friends, there is little evidence that anyone in the Bush administration meant well.

The fact that many Clinton supporters now claim to prefer McCain to Obama shows what many of us have thought all along: the Clintons were not really Democrats; they were just interested in holding power. That's why so much of her campaign (and now the vitriol of her supporters) is about what SHE deserves, not what the country needs. While Clinton supporters do have legitimate complaints about her treatment by the media, there only complaint about Obama appears to be that he had the nerve to run when she had already earned the right to be President. Now their focus seems to be that its more important that he show her the proper respect than that he pick the person best able to help him win and govern effectively. I don't think I am the only person who prefers Obama at least in part because he keeps pointing out that the campaign is not about him. When Hillary and her supporters understand this point, maybe they will be able to open their minds and hearts to the principles which are at the core of the Democratic party. We dont need two Republican parties.

The recent turn in the debate over the "success" of the surge now reveals the clear way in which both sides are talking past each other. The surge was promoted by President Bush as a response to the call last year for prompt withdrawal. The claim was that, if we just sent in more troops and pacified the country, we could then withdraw. But now Bush/McCain admit that the real goal of the surge was to pacify the country enough so that Americans would stop complaining about our casualities and support permanent occupation. Of course, the opponents of the invasion have claimed all along that permanent occupation was the real goal. So at least we have the (modest) satisfaction of this admission. But it does seem unfair for McCain and his allies to claim that the surge worked when they did not tell us that the only goal was to keep us there rather than to get us out. Obama should continue to insist that the surge was a failure if it does not permit our withdrawal--the original goal.

It is disheartening to see critics of the Iraq invasion get sucked into yet another diversionary argument by its architects (Feith, etc). It is of virtually no importance whether these architects intended (conspired?) to install Chalabi as their puppet. The ONLY importance of Chalabi is that his lies were used to support three implausible claims: (1) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; (2) that our invasion would be welcomed; and (3) that Chalabi or someone else could form a government which would allow us to leave quickly. By getting people to argue about whether their implausible post- invasion plans depended upon a conspiracy to install Chalabi and the supposed paralyzing battle between Defense, State, the White House and the CIA over this conspiracy, we are diverted from understanding that there was no plausible way that a stable government could have been created following the US invasion. Feith had no such plan; Wolfowitz had no such plan; Rumsfeld had no such plan; Cheney had no such plan; Perle had no such plan; Powell had no such plan; Rice had no such plan; (well you get the point). One or more of the following was bound to occur: (a) civil war between the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions; (b) partition of the country into two or three pieces; (c) takeover of the country by the Shiite majority, probably aided by Iran; (d) direct takeover of all or part of the country by Iran; (e) an invasion by Turkey to suppress the creation of a hostile Kurdish state on its border. None of these outcomes were or are better than having Saddam Hussein continue in office.

There is a reason that Senator McCain, while claiming that the surge was a success, says we have to stay in Iraq for 50 or 100 years. There is a reason why the first President Bush, supported by almost all of his advisors, decided not to take over Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War. There is reason why Senator Clinton (when she thought she was going to be the next president) practically begged the current President Bush to get us out of Iraq before leaving office. And now, unfortunately, there is a reason why Senator Obama is waffling on his pledge to leave Iraq. The invasion was a mistake which cannot be easily fixed. There was no way out and there is no way out. To borrow the title of a recent movie, "There Will Be Blood"

I think Professor Trout may be too much the Harvard/New York elitist that he claims to be to have an accurate view of how the New Yorker cover will be received.

(1) The overwhelming commentary that I have seen from both left and right on both TV and radio has condemned the cover.

(2) The negative images in this cover have been floating around the media (particularly the internet) ever since Obama was first noticed following his victory in the Iowa caucuses. It is difficult to imagine how highlighting those images in a magazine of quite limited circulation will hurt Obama, even though the cover has become a hot topic with other media. The scenario for this harm really does betray an elitist view. Does Professor Trout think that there are undecided voters out there (who have all heard over and over again that Obama is a radical Muslim and that he is so unpatritotic that he won't even wear a flag lapel) who will now say to themselves: "Well I wasn't sure that Obama was working for Osama bin Laden. But now the New Yorker, which is a left-wing, Obama-supporting magazine, has confirmed this. (By the way, I know the New Yorker is a left-wing magazine from reading it at the barbershop.) Therefore it must be true and I will vote for McCain."

3) Professor Trout's elitist views about Americans also come through in his complaint that viewers might "act on its meanings independently with no guidance from the satirist" and that the "reasons [would] be left to the viewer to sort out... with whatever inputs and analytical skills the viewer possesses."

4) Let's wait and see. Maybe America will suprise Trout. How about the audacity of hope?