I don’t have the world’s best memory. In fact, often I find that I forget a lot of details that I really should remember. And sometimes I have crystal-clear memories of things that just didn’t happen the way I thought they did.
But some things I remember so clearly, I am absolutely certain that I have it right. And it amazes me when it seems that I’m the only one who remembers them.
Back in 1991, during the first Iraq war, I remember perfectly how rapidly we utterly crushed and destroyed Saddam’s military. We spent a month pounding them from the air, using every weapon at our disposal, from the tiny Stealth fighters with their one or two bombs to massive carpet-bombing of their front lines by B-52s to streams of cruise missiles. We destroyed their command and control facilties, shredded their supply lines, devastated their vaunted forces until they were crouched, helpless, in their trenches and bunkers, dreading the bombs they knew were coming to destroy them.
And then I remember General Schwarzkopf’s brilliant ground campaign, where he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and pushed deep into Iraq proper, defeating them in a scant 100 hours. I remember General Colin Powell describing our intentions towards the feared Republican Guard — “we intend to cut it off, and then kill it.”
I remember the hordes of fleeing Iraqis, laden down with their pillage from Kuwait, racing up the highway, and US forces attacking and bombing them, turning it into the “Highway of Death” until our own pilots, sickened at the carnage, simply refused to continue the attacks. (Which were perfectly legal, by the way — fleeing enemies are legitimate targets; only surrendering enemies are protected.)
I remember the great argument at the time — with Saddam’s forces demoralized, dispersed, and scattered to the four winds, the road to Baghdad was wide open. Should the US press on and depose Saddam?
The far right said “yes.” They said that if Saddam was allowed to retain power, he would simply regroup, rebuild, and once again pose a threat to the region. He had already invaded Iran, invaded and conquered Kuwait, and had invaded Saudi Arabia. He posed a grave threat to the world’s stability and oil supply, and he would do so again.
The left said “no.” They said that we had won a great victory by uniting a large portion of the Arab world with us against one of their own. (The only group not with us was the Palestinians, who apparently feared ruining their record for backing losers, and Iran, who sat back and said “a pox on both your houses” while they scooped up a good chunk of Iraq’s air force.) We could count on them being with us in liberating Kuwait, but they balked at helping a Western nation supplant an Arab ruler.
Further, our mandate from the United Nations stopped short of instituting regime change in Iraq. We were empowered to liberate Kuwait and secure it from further aggression — no more.
President Bush followed the latter course, and I backed him at the time. I thought it was the right decision at the time, and I still think so today.
Let’s fast-forward a few years. In the aftermath of the war, the United Nations imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait. The United States took the lead in enforcing them, to the point of using bombs and missiles to remind Iraq that those sanctions were the only thing holding further war in abeyence. But as the years dragged on and Saddam played round after round of “cheat and retreat,” fatigue seemed to settle in. People started calling for an end to the sanctions, saying that Saddam had been “punished enough.” They cited statistic after statistic about how tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi babies had died as a consequence of the sanctions. It’s been long enough, Saddam’s done enough, it’s time to let Iraq take a few steps back towards rejoining the community of nations.
Then 9/11 happened, and that whole movement evaporated like the morning mist.
And on the Korean peninsula, I recall that it was in the 1990’s that North Korea started seriously working on nuclear weapons. It was a major concern of President Clinton’s, and he (with the able assistance of former President Carter) ultimately brokered a deal that gave North Korea cash, food, and a nuclear reactor. In fact, in 1998, top Clinton aide Paul Begala testified before Congress that North Korea had abandoned its ballistic-missile program.
But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe my short-term memory issues are starting to cloud my long-term memories. Because whenever I get into debates about the war in Iraq, those who oppose the war seem to recall events differently.
They say that we wouldn’t be in this mess if the first President Bush had simply “finished the job” and toppled Saddam back in 1991. They say that President Clinton had a firm handle on Iraq. They don’t recall that a week after Paul Begala gave Clinton’s reassurances to Congress, North Korea fired a test missile that landed just off Alaska. They say that the sanctions and inspections against Iraq were working, and we should have given them more time instead of invading.
I probably should discuss this with my doctor, because every single one of those statements clashes with how I remember things.
AnonynousD:
I think we share considerable common ground of the assessment of the geopolitics but differ pointedly on the appropriate response.
Ya, I think we do have quite a lot of common ground in the overall assessment. And honestly, we might not differ as much as you might think in our ideas of the appropriate response, but thats for another day…
Your points are well stated, and well taken, by the way.
However, there’s an unending excoriation of this government because Bush was “dishonest” with Americans. I don’t agree that he was but let’s assume that his main reason was not the most valid. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?
Well, yes. If we make the assumption that the main reason wasnt valid, then that does matter in the grand scheme of things. This is my point exactly…I feel that GW and co. should have just stuck to the solid and valid reasons, and steered clear of the conjecture. For me, that would have been better at least. They had plenty of reasons, valid ones, to intervene in Iraq…I dont think it was wise to make such a big deal about WMDs, imminent threats, etc. when those werent as substantial. I think Bush gave his detractors alot of fodder with those red herrings, you know?
It’s fun to make it into some kind of percentage thing saying that they were still 80 percent truthful…but to be fair the percentages have to be weighted in some way to reflect their relative importance, or at least how they were presented. Does that make sense?
In all this I’m not taking away from the fact that there were plenty of solid reasons to go deal with Hussein. The problem is that Bush and Co. kinda built their case on something that wasnt there, and suffered the consequences. Instead, why not build your case on the solid evidence? (20/20 I know). I think they made a gamble with the WMDs and all that because it was alot more immediate and scary and dramatic. When those weapons didnt surface, well, there was alot of room for bipartisan attacks, IMO. The case for war that they’d built lost its star witness.
Simplistic summary I know, but if we don’t go wobbly this time, it’ll be a historic legacy of which this country can be proud… and the Middle East thankful.
It COULD work, you’re right. It would be nice too. Sometimes I try to imagine how things would be with a democratic Iraq, you know surrounded by Iran and Syria and Jordan. Is it going to be a struggle like what Israel has had? Will there be constant attacks for decades, or will it start to turn the tide?
I’ll let historians debate the ethic, honesty, and esoteric of intervention while they sip tea, eat scones, and wallow by the pool in a non-Fundamental milieu. Maybe they’ll recognize the irony too.
lol
Oh dont worry…they get paid to recognize such ironies while they eat scones and sip tea.
And where will the Creation Scientits be in that future non-Fundamental milieu? 😉
One more thing about the “Grand Scheme”:
The only real reason that any of this matters in the big picture is the fact that this whole ordeal has divided this country so much. I dont think that needed to happen, and I do think it could have been avoided.
As far as the reasons for war though, no, in the end it doesnt matter. There were legit reasons, and anyway we’re there now.
The whole red/blue split drove me crazy though. It still pisses me off.
So, Ryan, you’re saying that it’s wrong to do the right thing if one bumbles the reasons? That sounds a variation of the “shoot the messenger” bit — denouncing the cause over the spokesman’s ineptitude. I’ve always supported the invasion of Iraq, and not given two figs about the talk — the action was right and needed to be done. I’m not going to let quibbling over technicalities and fine nuances and “just the right wording” gum up the works.
J.
Jay:
So, because our reasoning was 80% rather than 100% correct, the left argues that it was all wrong.
Look, Bush and Co. took a gamble with that WMD thing. I wouldnt even say that I think they were being dishonest; I dont. I think they believed the sources they had, and made the WMDs the big issue. It fell flat. Some Americans felt lied to. That was the gamble. I personally would have preferred it if they stuck to the solid reasons when making the case for war. The whole preclude to war/heightened fear thing didnt work well for me at all.
I agree that people on the left go overboard. They really do. The whole Bush as Hitler thing, and the whole blaming Bush for everything that has gone wrong under the sun–it’s out of control. I mean, don’t they realize that this country is run by more than one person? Don’t they realize that Democrats are also a part of governing this country, and responsible as well? Can’t they remember that Clinton was saying the same things about Iraq, and about WMDs and all that? Well, he was.
Hussein was a problem, in a region that anyone who reads anything about geopolitics understands is prime real estate. And it’s going to get more precious in the future. Everyone knew that he would have to be dealt with, because you cant have some unwieldy murderous dictator running rampant in one of the most politically and economically valuable regions in the world. Not good. So yes, of course the reasons for intervention were not all wrong. It would be nice to see some people on the left edge come back to the table.
Jay:
So, Ryan, you’re saying that it’s wrong to do the right thing if one bumbles the reasons?
No. I’m saying that Bush and Co. kinda shot themselves in the foot politically with the WMD thing.
I’m not meaning to imply that I think the action was wrong. I think that Hussein had to be dealt with, and sanctions weren’t going to do anything beside cause millions of Iraqis to starve. I disagree with some of the ways that we went about things, but I did think we had to deal with him.
It was the job of Bush and his people to make the case for war, just like all political leaders have to do. They had a good case, but added things that they felt potentially could break the thing wide open. The WMD stuff scared quite a lot of Americans, really scared the shit out of them. Now, when it turned out that they didn’t exist, and that the evidence for them wasnt as solid as had been promulgated, many people were angry and turned that toward Bush. Maybe not the best reaction of all time, but I can see where they were coming from.
I’m not going to let quibbling over technicalities and fine nuances and “just the right wording” gum up the works.
Well, we might differ on this then. If “just the right wording” means the truth, then I’ll quibble over it anyday.
Ryan A.
“But still, that doesnt imply “peaceful” or “unbelligerent”. It implies certain rights and international laws.”
By definition, you’re absolutely right. But I’m not talking about definitions here, I’m talking the ill-applied connotation of a word in use by the anti-war protestors. They are using the word to connote something that it does NOT nor was it ever intended to connote: “peaceful” and “unbelligerent”. And I think putting emphasis on the word is important because it is precisely what the anti-war crowed is doing. They are trying to give a word more meaning than it rigthfully deserves.
On this matter, I think we agree and disagree.
While I’m no lawyer and would have a great deal of difficulty in speaking to international laws and rights, I could certainly go into the numerous, nay countless, violations Saddam’s Iraq committed after 1990, beginning with violating Resolution 667. I believe the whole issue of whether or not the war was illegal or legal is best summed up here.
Ryan A.:
“It would be nice to see some people on the left edge come back to the table.”
Wow! I couldn’t agree more. Less carping and more real-world problem solving would be a welcome respite from the “Bush is Hitler” rantings now. You’re very right, it’s completely out of control.
All I keep thinking about is how our intelligence community failed us on 9/11 and on WMD. That, more than anything, should have Dems and Reps alike worried as hell. We should all pray that Porter Goss is straightening things out.