Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
As I wrote here, knowing what he knew at the time, President Bush was right to order the invasion of Iraq. But in his post, Peter asks a second question:
If President Bush had known then what we know now, would he still have been right to do so?
That is the age-old question of should the North have used force to restore the Union, given 600,000 dead that followed, or should Britain have come to France's aid in August 1914, given that an entire generation of British youth was lost, or should we have really demanded unconditional surrender from a losing Japan in late 1944 in light of the subsequent horror at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and Hiroshima, and so on.
I still support the President's decision, despite the bungling of dismissing the Iraqi military, the utopian assumptions of almost instant democratic reform, the initial so-so response to the growing insurgency, the desire to leave asap without stabilizing Iraq, and all the other well-documented, postfacto recognitions of military error that so often characterize wars. I say that I still support the invasion and decision of George Bush--especially his lonely insistence on the surge--for at least five reasons:
- Iraq still has a good chance to become a stable consensual society, given that insurgents, both Iranian-inspired and al-Qaeda fostered, have not been able to topple the 2004-5 democratic government. There is freedom in Iraq unknown in most of the Middle East, and no Iraq government is planning invasions of its neighbors, sponsoring terrorism, or trying to use its oil wealth to amass a dangerous arsenal of nuclear, bio-chemical, or conventional weapons. Do not take it from me: there is a reason why the luminaries of the Obama administration—especially the foreign policy triad of Hillary Clinton ("suspension of disbelief"), Joe Biden (trisect Iraq), and Barack Obama (the surge "failed") who all came to vehemently oppose the war—now envision Iraq as one of its "greatest success." In that regard, Iraq went from the absolute worst to the most hopeful of the Middle East states. I think the old realist policy of winking and nodding at the murderous Saddam regime, with occasional stealthy help, as a deterrent to Iran, was morally unsustainable and indefensible.
- Kurdistan is a success story. It was faced with the continual threat of genocidal attacks by Saddam Hussein; today it is a booming economy. All that would have been impossible without U.S. intervention.
- I see the larger region with more hope with Saddam gone--and increased U.S. security. Conventional wisdom says we empowered Iran; but Iran was already working on a nuclear program by 2003. If anything, the participation of Shiites in consensual government in Iraq has had a destabilizing effect on Iran, as powerful as Iran's efforts to ruin Iraq are. The agitation in Iran proves that it is not a stable country and is terribly worried both about the experiment on its borders and the presence of 50,000 US troops and a strong naval presence nearby. The notion that today, at a time of sky-high oil prices with incessant Chinese demand, a Saddamite Iraq would be stable is ludicrous; more likely the world would long have tired of its no-fly-zones; Saddam would be selling oil to the French, North Koreans, Chinese and Russians for an entire new arsenal; he would still be sending bounties to suicide bombers on the West Bank or Hamas terrorists, and inviting in more of the sort who were involved in the first attempt at destroying the world trade center.
- There were other positive ripples from our removing Saddam Hussein, some unfortunately now diluted due to our missed opportunities to keep engaged, some still in effect: Syria left Lebanon after the Cedar spring protests. Libya gave up its WMD program, apparently much larger than what was conceived by Saddam Hussein; Dr. Khan's nuclear franchise was shut down; U.S. troops were vacated from Saudi Arabia, ending a constant pretext for radical Islamic responses. All that was inextricably tied to the decision to remove Saddam.
- We killed or captured tens of thousands of radical Islamic terrorists in Anbar Province. Given the sanctuaries in nuclear Pakistan, we really had no other area in which to confront radical Islamists and discredit them on the ground militarily. For good or evil, they flocked to Iraq, were decisively defeated and humiliated by the U.S. military, and forsaken by Sunni allies. While the Taliban hosted the 9/11 killers, and while so far there is no real evidence that Saddam knew of the 9/11 plot,the fact remains that the 9/11 killers were radical Sunni Arab terrorists, who had a habit of using Middle East dictators to support their cause, either stealthily or indirectly. By taking out a Sunni Arab state-sponsor of global terrorism, the United States sent a message that it would no longer tolerate the status quo of the last quarter-century.
One reason the popularity of bin Laden has plummeted is the destruction of all those who took up his cause in Iraq. And one reason why for 9 years, and against all odds, we have had no repeat of 9/11 is the overseas show of force and terrible toll we took on al Qaeda operatives and the terrorist cachet in Iraq.
So yes, even given the terrible price we paid to remove Saddam, I think the long-term price of inaction, both to us and to the world, would have been greater. I think that we paid a tragic price, but the sacrifices of our brave soldiers saved in the long run tens of thousands of lives, made the world and the US safer, gave millions a chance that would have otherwise been impossible, and were a testament to their heroism and morality.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
Excellent responses to both of Peter's questions. Thank you for taking the time to lay out full defenses of both.
Aug '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
Eloquent veracity, Sir. We as a nation benefited by drawing a line and holding it, displaying tenacity and character, showing our military skill, and - dare I say it? - genius. We've learned enormous lessons about the new asymmetrical warfare of the 21st Century. Just as Vietnam paid long term dividends by forcing us into reforms, so will Iraq reshape our armed forces and philosophy.
Al Qaeda suffered a horrific loss in Iraq, and Iran also was chastened. So much of what they do now is bluster and bull**** to paper-over their profound weakness. They're evil and dangerous, yes, but that's because the mullahs and their oligarchy are cornered and weak. The Arab world hates them. We should not forget that they're not Arabs
Wars teach valuable lessons that the world needs to learn, and America is still the best teacher and student. How painful is it for me to say that? Very.
Jun '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
Thank you for this article, Dr. Hanson. People are often still amazed when I tell them my own anecdotal stories from my time in Iraq. When I tell them that we were able to establish a sense of calm and cooperation throughout our area, following on the hard work of the units that preceded us, they seem utterly shocked. The inevitable, "do you think we'll be successful?" or "should we be there?" follows. I say "yes" and hope to persuade them to reconsider their previously held biases about our purposes in Iraq. However, this article is an excellent opportunity to turn them on to a more scholarly and weighty approach to understanding Iraq. It is also encouraging to see people such as yourself continue to support what we've done there. It often seems that everyone has given up on our purposes there. But this article is a welcome reminder that support still exists.
Jun '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
This is the most articulate assessment I have seen of the decision to intervene in the affairs of Iraq and the region based on what was known at the time and what we know now and VDH looks hopefully to the future. Still, I am reminded of what Chinese Prime Minister Chou En-Lai supposedly said in 1972 to Henry Kissinger when asked the effect of the French Revolution on western civilization: "It's too soon to tell."
Edited on Aug 30, 2010 at 8:06amMay '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
Dr. Hanson, you make about as convincing an argument as can be made. The modern realists and their obsession with "stability" and balance of power theory are clearly a long way from traditional interest based policy and do not offer productive strategies. And the politicking of the democratic party on the issue has clearly been shameful.
That being said, I'm still not fully convinced at this point.
My main concern is the Iraq War as a matter of precedent. We clearly survived it and achieved some good, but I just do not think we'd fare as well in the long run if we tried to make a habit out of this kind of conflict. The world needs to start paying its own bills.
Let's pay off our massive debt before we start running off to spend huge sums of money (nonetheless lives) on things that have an arguable immediate concern, whether in domestic or foreign policy.
Edited on Mar 24, 2011 at 5:15pmMay '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
I should add my expectations for what would be necessary to deem the conflict worth the cost. In 5-10 years most of what Dr. Hanson points out should prove to remain true; Iraq should be a bedrock of democracy, our core political ally in the region, and a replacement for Saudi Arabia as our primary oil supplier in the region. I'm skeptical right now, but acknowledge the situation is fluid and retains hope for optimism.
I don't buy the democratic domino theory and have no expectations for such an occurrence as a result of the war.
I still think the worst unintended consequence was the loss of will that contributed to the election of Obama and legitimized his horrid foreign policy approach. If the US becomes a European styled social democracy, I'm not sure whether it will matter much to me whether Iraqis vote every few years.
Edited on Aug 30, 2010 at 9:02amJun '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
Kofola, war is not always avoidable but most of us agree it should definitely not be habitual. Not only was Sadam Hussein an evil, murderous, pernicious tyrant, but he had two sons, relatively young, who were even more perverse than Sadam himself. It wasn't as if we could just wait for him to die. There is just no way to know how much death and misery Sadam and his sons would have caused...we know he would have caused some. Now, however, we do know for certain...he won't cause any.
Thank you, Victor Davis Hanson for honoring us at Ricochet with your comments.
Edited on Aug 30, 2010 at 10:10amAug '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
Two comments: First, I would emphasize Dr. Hanson's point #3. People now tend to assume that there would have been no costs for doing nothing. But as Dr. Hanson shows, this was not the case. Second, the idea of spreading liberal democracy in the Mid East is often caricatured. One of the claims Islamists reiterate is the perniciousness of all modern political ideas--the nation, the idea of rights, man-made laws, etc. The Arab world has obviously not been friendly to these ideas. Political identity has been located in Islam or in some from of Arab nationalism (Baathism), or in local identities like the tribe. But what if a major Arab country like Iraq were to make its peace with the idea of the nation and even an ordered, constitutional regime? Perhaps Arab culture and certain understandings of Islam make this a difficult, even unlikely project. But I certainly don't think it is foolish to stand with the Iraqis who want to take this path. And there would be no greater rebuke to the Islamist vision than an Iraq that brings the fruits of the rule of law, constitutional government, and property rights to its citizens.
Jun '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
VDH for Defense Secretary or Secretary of State. Whichever one Dr. Hanson doesn't want, let's give to John Bolton. The world would gain a whole new (and much better) perception of the USA.
Jul '10
Re: Yes, Even Knowing What We Know Now
As eloquent as ever. One of the finest minds in the nation.
This is a very difficult matter for me. The question properly framed (In my very amateur opinion) [IMVAO?] is whether it properly served the national interest of the United States to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. We cannot be in the business of solving problems that are not in our national interest. We muust frame these questions narrowly.
The single reason I always find absolutely compellling is that Saddam tried to assassinate a U.S. President. Call it schoolyard logic, but you simply cannot allow that to happen without severe consequences. Ever. Did that mean we had to go about it the way we did? I do not feel competent to answer that. But we had no choice but to do it. Ond once in, we had to be all in.
The world would be a very different (worse) place had we not deposed Saddam.