In a new book, former Bush speechwriter and NEWSWEEK contributor Michael J. Gerson warns against learning the wrong lessons from Iraq.
Comment: It comes as no surprise that Michael J. Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter and admitted Rumsfeld admirer, would defend the Iraq war in an attempt to salvage his tarnished credibility and neoconservative ideology. But it is shocking that Gerson claims his intention is to learn the right lessons from the Iraq war
Comment: It comes as no surprise that Michael J. Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter and admitted Rumsfeld admirer, would defend the Iraq war in an attempt to salvage his tarnished credibility and neoconservative ideology (???No Cause for Hypercaution??? Nov. 5). But it is shocking that Gerson claims his intention is to learn the right lessons from the Iraq war. You can only learn from history if you have the guts to ask the tough questions and to question fundamental beliefs. If Gerson was serious about learning from Iraq he would have tackled substantial criticisms of Bush???s war in Iraq that serious critics have repeatedly raised. Such as: can democracy be established in the Middle East through an unprovoked, U.S. military intervention and occupation? Has the war in Iraq made the problem of violent Islamic extremism in the world better or worse? Or, has ignoring international opinion and intelligence produced better or worse foreign policy decision-making for the U.S.? But Gerson doesn???t want to be troubled with such probing, hardball questions. Instead he frames the Iraq issue using overly simplistic criticisms of the war and invents a new, exaggerated threat to American foreign policy: a so-called ???hyper-caution???. The risk of a complete paralysis of U.S. foreign policy in reality doesn???t exist. It is not espoused by any serious challenger for the Whitehouse in 08. Gerson is just trying to paint some absurd, counter-scenario to portray his old boss???s reckless actions in a better light. In doing so Mr. Gerson shows his true aim is only to justify and defend the core neoconservative rationale that misled us into Iraq. Unfortunately Gerson???s work does a great disservice to our country which does need to learn real lessons from our ordeal in Iraq.
Nicholas Bianchi
Chicago, IL
Comment: It comes as no surprise that Michael J. Gerson, a former Bush speechwriter and admitted Rumsfeld admirer, would defend the Iraq war in an attempt to salvage his tarnished credibility and neoconservative ideology. But it is shocking that Gerson claims his intention is to learn the right lessons from the Iraq war. You can only learn from history if you have the guts to ask the tough questions and to question fundamental beliefs. If Gerson was serious about learning from Iraq he would have tackled substantial criticisms of Bush???s war in Iraq that serious critics have repeatedly raised. Such as: can democracy be established in the Middle East through an unprovoked, U.S. military intervention and occupation? Has the war in Iraq made the problem of violent Islamic extremism in the world better or worse? Or, has ignoring international opinion and intelligence produced better or worse foreign policy decision-making for the U.S.? But Gerson doesn???t want to be troubled with such probing, hardball questions. Instead he frames the Iraq issue using overly simplistic criticisms of the war and invents a new, exaggerated threat to American foreign policy: a so-called ???hyper-caution???. The risk of a complete paralysis of U.S. foreign policy in reality doesn???t exist. It is not espoused by any serious challenger for the Whitehouse in 08. Gerson is just trying to paint some absurd, counter-scenario to portray his old boss???s reckless actions in a better light. In doing so Mr. Gerson shows his true aim is only to justify and defend the core neoconservative rationale that misled us into Iraq. Unfortunately Gerson???s work does a great disservice to our country which does need to learn real lessons from our ordeal in Iraq.
Nicholas Bianchi
Chicago, IL
Comment: I might add two other comments for Michael Gerson:
Say the Bush Administration was attempting as big a step toward democratic government in Iraq as they could after a successful invasion and defeat of Saddam's army. Perhaps in summer of 2003, folks were saying "We really must be Gods!" But as the press noted in 2003 and 2004, the Admin was leaving no exits. There were no planned or optional exits. The destruction of the UN mission in Aug-03, the extended capture of Saddam all the way to Nov-03, the chaos/looting in Baghdad - all that was prelude. The exit strategies should have been planned. They weren't.
Karen Hughes has said often, noteably to President Bush, that the largest step to improving the US image in the world would be a significant resolution to the Israel-Palestine issue. But in 50 years, the US has taken no step to do that. One might say "Look at Carter's Israel-Egypt Peace Accord." But that had nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. The scale of such a resolution is demonstrated in the ideas of - Separating the Two Peoples - and - A 'New Palestine' in westmost Saudi Arabia on Gulf of Aqaba / Red Sea above Duba. But those resolutions will not happen, ever, because the West and the US has not responded in any real way in fifty years.
Comment: Lol, more examples of why your hate towards conservatives over powers your ablility to think logically. I wonder why the owners of Newsweek have not yet killed themselves. Anybody who created a magazine whoes main readers are ignorant anti-right wing liberals that do nothing but whine and speak hate aginst conservatives would.
We went into Iraq without knowing the culture and for wrong reasons. We should of just stuck with Afganistan. however it is stupid to try and leave unitl peace is restored because get this, Iraq will become a very big threat to us if we leave. With no US or Iraq military/police forces in the country, the terroirsts, drug dealers, and other criminals will come in and take control. As our troops start leaving, attacks will intensify and when we are out our enimies will move in and fill the power vaccum. other nations, such as Iran or Syria will move in and take over the defensless country and the last thing we need is Iran getting more oil and getting closer to Isreal. Plus it will destabalize the region even more than we did when we came in.
I say, leave it to the military Generals. Saying we should leave Iraq now just shows your ignorance for stragety. Stop complaining about how we got in. Start think how to win. I think we need to find out if this surge is really working. If it is other facter, we should very slowly to start to replace normal troops with a smaller number of special forces. We should stop the terroirsts before they get the weapons. Find were they get weapons and where they hide. Do not wait until they attack first. track them down. Send armed and well trained FBI/CIA/CSI agents to help trac them down. Treat them (insurgents) like crimanals (but kill them ike terrorists). Just some suggestions that help.
Comment: Michael Gerson should nail down the scale and character of "Terrorism" in his own mind and soul.
[1] Are there 100,000 terrorists in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan? Or in Pakistan? Or in Iran? No, there are perhaps 1,000-3,000 terrorists in each of those places. They are led by a revolutionary cadre of 100-500 Islamists who are like Lenin and the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. The Bolsheviks succeeded NOT because they were strong or had appeal - BUT - because in WWI the Russian army collapsed. Think that through.
[2] Somalia, 1993 and Blackhawk Down - an interesting story. In Mogadishu, 1993, US Rangers/DeltaForce went in with UN warrants to arrest Arab chieftain Aide who was proven to be stealing and reselling UN food. A battle resulted killing about 20 US soldiers and 500-1,000 Somalis. Clinton then pulled the US out. Four months later Aide was killed in a shoot-out between rival tribal chieftains. Think that through.
[3] A military occupation by an American army is not the best way to 'get along' with an Arab deeply Islamic people - just 40 years after Britain left India and 30 years after Suez. The classic decision-points are: Whether to bomb and sanction Saddam rather than invade - and - Whether after invading, to implant a military council of the old Iraqi army and Baathist party (after capturing and exiling Saddam -> Guam?) rather than creating de novo a secular democratic modern state and people?
Comment: I meant 55 years after Britain left India and 45 years after Suez.
Comment: d
Comment: "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread" Gerson you need to read and understand the preceding little chestnut -- you obviously never heard it before! I think Gerson is still under the effects of the Kool-Aid, and probably doesn't even begin to understand what a pipe dream he and the president were chasing. The fact that he sided with Rumsfeld against Powell tells you all you need to know about Gerson, and I just have this picture of the idiocy that preceded the invasion. Now Gerson comes to us and says, no need for hyper-caution, this after one of the most reckless rushes into war that our country has ever experienced!!! Bush is a clueless moron, and apparently so is Gerson. Its kinda funny, he quotes Bush like what he says really matters, that he has rational arguments to add to the discussion about what to do in Iraq. Sadly, that never has been the case, from the moment dubya took office!
Comment: You Made some remarkable comments about How The thinking of White House reflects in the Iraqi Home Grown violence that takes lives of many,almost everyday. I may not be as aware about the Issues and prevaling conditions as you do,but still would like to put forth some points worth consideration: People who follow Islam are a very United tribe.they consider every other Human who follows Islam as their brother.If an Islamic is hurt or killed in one part of the world its creates as stirr across all community.America attacked other Nations where Islamic people were killed,however unintended.But It caused ripples.secondly,Quran ,the religious book of Islam,doesn't favor violence,but does allow its followers,to go on Jihad - the religious violence when one of their fellow islami is killed or suffering because someone outside islam hurt him!When these Islamic followers are killed for various reasons across the world,the people get intrigued and they want to revenge on basis of the Jihad.However not all are courageous or ruthless enough to begin killing innocent people but here comes the Rise of the Likes of Osama,Al-Jawahiri.who themselves are no big Men,but their Mission of Jihad finds popular support in conventional,fundamentalist Islamists across the world. and hence the resources in the form of Money , weapons and providing asylum when the world is behind them.Last thing is America's unrivalled military might,that sometimes goes on to dominate some of the most beleaguered nations and killing many innocent people and fuels this ambition of revenge among these fundamentalists.When these three combine,the result is sometimes as horrible as WTC or mere London Blasts.Stripping Iraq off WMD was a noble idea, well supported across the world. But the way it was executed,with Air strikes on populated areas killing women, children and men alike,could hardly be digested by these fundamentalists.Currently,the Unstoppable street violence thats going on in Iraq,despite the presence of American forces is just the expression of revolt that the local people want the world to know about. America, on its own has developed itself in a happy, prosperous Nation. Its interruption in the world Matters is appreciated but only to the extent that it doesn???t cause the deaths of innocents and leaves thousands homeless.What Osama did , in the form of WTC is truly regrettable and will never be justified under any circumstances.but why the innocents in Middle East,predominantly Muslim countries have to bear the costs becoming the target of american cruise missiles that fly above the head,leaving behind just destruction , pain and suffering!We want a multi ethnic and coherent world where people of one culture cheer with others sharing the feel of togetherness,Not fighting to justify a particular culture as radical,chauvinist and Orthodox. and once this feel becomes prevalent in the heart of decision makers at High Offices , Humility will forever remain humilty not humiliation!
Comment: Gerson, like many who have unwaveringly supported the war, fail to learn the real lessons. First, regime change or regime removal are simply polished foreign policy words for invade or subverting the politics of sovereign nations. The United States has an extensive history of doing this, even if the nation's government is democratically elected. Regime change in this case makes it sound a lot nicer than the real term that should be used: invasion of a sovereign nation. Secondly, when slicksters like Gerson validate Iraq by discussing the 'liberation of the Iraqi people,' the gloss over the fact that the primary motivation was WMD's, which was quickly disproven, and the rhetoric moved to cover this blunder to make us seem like the altruistic 'beacon of democracy' in this tragedy. It is because there is not a clear rationale (except for the never stated profit motive) that the American public has ceased to support this war...not because of strategic bombing of the insurgents. Finally, Gerson tries to argue that we can not scrap this policy of preemption because it would be difficult to acheving the noble ends of stopping genocide. But let's be honest for once. This mission was not humanitarian, and if we invade another country under paper-thin security pretense that is as easily disproven, it won't be humanitarian either, no matter how hard politicos like Gerson try to spin it to wash the blood from their hands.
Comment: Hypercaution? What caution? There was NO caution. Gerson is an aider and abettor in the Iraq War. He is just another one of Bush's former aides trying to distance himself from what are clearly failed policies.
Comment: Au contraire...the most important lesson learned from the war is to be wary of slick spin-meinsters like Gerson's double speak: tactics: "argumentum ad hominem and the pot calling the kettle black": those favoring withdrawal (the Democrats) are politically motivated, while the initial decision and continued support for the conflict (the Republicans) were NOT?; "begging the question": the rationale for going to war was nation building and democraticization of the Middle East, not removing the threat of WMDs (as we were originally told) or for oil (as Greenspan had the courage to admit); "straw man": any decision to go to war requires absolute, 100% intelligence certainty and international unanimity; "gratuitous assumptions": Islamic terrorism would increase if we withdraw but not if we stay; and contradiction of widely estabished fact as reported by security agency that the threat of terrorism and international anger and skepticism toward the U.S. has significantly increased since 1993. Only the gulliible would buy this book.
Comment: I think the most important lesson from the debacke in Iraq is to keep men like Mr. Gerson far, far away from the trappings of power.
What incredible transparent rationalizations of an outrageausly conceived and impotently executed plan to extend American power.
There are two real lessons to learn from Iraq:
1. The world is not like the fantasies and fairy tales that conservatives like to portray from their ivory towers and think tanks. It consists of real people who live, who bleed, and who die, often in vain.
2. The most important lesson of Iraq is to stop lying to the American publc. They may be so gullible that te lies basedon "patritism" and "security" will work for a while, but eventually these lies become exposed by reality.
Comment: Mr Gerson: Please, you and the rest of the neocons, put our nation's interests and well-being above the interest of all other countries! Are you happy now? It's obviously beyond you to admit that you have been wrong, let alone that you owe us confessions and apologies.
Comment: I suppose that Gerson and the rest of the neocon cadre will always subsume our foreign policy and security interests to those of another nation. Their call to service and to action seems always to be, "Let's you and him fight!"
Comment: No the lesson in Iraq had nothing to do with ridiculous stereotypes that certain people and cultures don't have the capacity to sustain a democracy, the real lesson is not to let a bunch of incompetent people run your country. I've seen seven year olds take more time in planning out a play at their school than this administration put towards the aftermath of the war in Iraq. This was too complex a project for a group of self righteous, egotistical, right wing vigilantes to pull off, and now our service men and woman are left to feel the brunt of their ineptitude. I think they should all be liable for their incompetence in front of the country and the people they affected.
Comment: Mr. Gerson cannot possibly believe this dribble. First, Certainly India has become a democracy (after its people begged an occupier to leave for decades), but the million or so lives lost in sectarian violence gave rise to a split of India into Pakistan as well, which have been at war on and off since the partition. These 2 countries have provided a greater threat of nuclear war than any terrorist group, and Pakistan itself, not a democracy, is the de facto home to Al Qu'eeda, as well as the probable supplier of nuclear info for rogue states and other organizations, so it is not quite a completed sucess story for those who live in the reality based world! As for the failures of Iraq leading to hypercaution, Mr. Gerson is also refusing to understand the true risks of having acted recklessly. The world, nor the american people are willing to trust that the US government is telling the truth about possible threats and will require tangible proof before accepting any more adventures, when once upon a time, US word was considered honorable enough that americans and others wouldn't even questtion it. That is the price that we and the world must pay for this group's misguided adventurism and belief that they alone know all the answers. And of course occupation did not meet large scale initial resentment in Iraq, it wasn't until the Iraqi's realized that democracy came at the price of sacrifice and sharing that they rebelled against it. They choose not to take sides, and instead allowed the religious and power hungry among them to fight it out. Who could have guessed such a result (except of course for the president's own father who wrote about it in 1992 or so). Finally, the concept that terrorism hasn't increased with the use of US military force against Iraq is delusional. 19 or so people were responsible for 9/11 (you can add 20 or so more operational partners). There was no large scale following of Osama Bin Laden's calls for Jihad against America because US troops were in Saudi Arabia, or any of the otrher reasons listed. But, according to our own goverment, THOUSANDS of muslim men have left their homes and countries to come to Iraq to fight the americans. There will always be (and have always been) demagogues such as OBL to call for war and terror against the USA and other nations, the question of terrorism isn't about these calls, but about what actions lead to a rise in those who will respond. People like Mr. Gerson should stop arguing that they were right, take a breath, see what they have done to the world, and figure out what they can do to try to make up for the damage they have done to our nation, constitution and the world. You can call spilt milk art, but someone still has to clean it up. Mr. Gerson, by ignoring the constitution, by misusing fear from 9/11 for political and power purposes, you have been a part of a group that has unarguably altered what it is to be an american. Feel shame, and then do something to deserve forgiveness.
Comment: Mr. Gerson cannot possibly believe this dribble. First, Certainly India has become a democracy (after its people begged an occupier to leave for decades), but the million or so lives lost in sectarian violence gave rise to a split of India into Pakistan as well, which have been at war on and off since the partition. These 2 countries have provided a greater threat of nuclear war than any terrorist group, and Pakistan itself, not a democracy, is the de facto home to Al Qu'eeda, as well as the probable supplier of nuclear info for rogue states and other organizations, so it is not quite a completed sucess story for those who live in the reality based world! As for the failures of Iraq leading to hypercaution, Mr. Gerson is also refusing to understand the true risks of having acted recklessly. The world, nor the american people are willing to trust that the US government is telling the truth about possible threats and will require tangible proof before accepting any more adventures, when once upon a time, US word was considered honorable enough that americans and others wouldn't even questtion it. That is the price that we and the world must pay for this group's misguided adventurism and belief that they alone know all the answers. And of course occupation did not meet large scale initial resentment in Iraq, it wasn't until the Iraqi's realized that democracy came at the price of sacrifice and sharing that they rebelled against it. They choose not to take sides, and instead allowed the religious and power hungry among them to fight it out. Who could have guessed such a result (except of course for the president's own father who wrote about it in 1992 or so). Finally, the concept that terrorism hasn't increased with the use of US military force against Iraq is delusional. 19 or so people were responsible for 9/11 (you can add 20 or so more operational partners). There was no large scale following of Osama Bin Laden's calls for Jihad against America because US troops were in Saudi Arabia, or any of the otrher reasons listed. But, according to our own goverment, THOUSANDS of muslim men have left their homes and countries to come to Iraq to fight the americans. There will always be (and have always been) demagogues such as OBL to call for war and terror against the USA and other nations, the question of terrorism isn't about these calls, but about what actions lead to a rise in those who will respond. People like Mr. Gerson should stop arguing that they were right, take a breath, see what they have done to the world, and figure out what they can do to try to make up for the damage they have done to our nation, constitution and the world. You can call spilt milk art, but someone still has to clean it up. Mr. Gerson, by ignoring the constitution, by misusing fear from 9/11 for political and power purposes, you have been a part of a group that has unarguably altered what it is to be an american. Feel shame, and then do something to deserve forgiveness.
Comment: Perhaps the "student" didn't intend to address the issues you reflected upon. Those ideals may be for the next articale the "student" produces.
"Professor", stay on point!
Comment: calstatereader - Perhaps the "student" didn't intend to address the issues you reflected upon. Those issues may be in the next essay the "student" produces. Stay on topic "Professor"!
Comment: At first blush, this article sounds brilliant, altruistic and even patriotic. On reflection, it does not address the abandonment of the US constitution, the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the embracement of torture, the advent of neo-colonialism, domestic spying on ordinary citizens, preemptive and arbitrary use of military force, the subsidy of religion, the creation of a police state, the undermining of the middle class, the unbridled prostitution of the nation's resources to oil, defense and other industrial resources ---in all, an eroded concept of democracy which can include all these departures from the American way. Is this the kind of "democracy" we're introducing to Iraq? God help us! This essay is myopic; I'll give it a "D."
Student, get back to work!
Comment: At first blush, this article sounds brilliant, altruistic and even patriotic. On reflection, it does not address the abandonment of the US constitution, the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, the embracement of torture, the advent of neo-colonialism, domestic spying on ordinary citizens, preemptive and arbitrary use of military force, the subsidy of religion, the creation of a police state, the undermining of the middle class, the unbridled prostitution of the nation's resources to oil, defense and other industrial resources ---in all, an eroded concept of democracy which can include all these departures from the American way. Is this the kind of "democracy" we're introducing to Iraq? God help us! This essay is myopic; I'll give it a "D."
Student, get back to work!
Comment: Crossbow 42, you hit the crucial point right on. The center of gravity in this war is the moderate Islamic community. If we win them over, the hardcore militants will be marginalized and exposed instead of admired and aided, making them more vulnerable to counter-terrisom operations by the CIA and copperative foreign intel agencies. A rough historical analogy might be found in our own experience with radical student groups of the 1960's. As long as there was widespread resentment in college campuses during the Vietnam War, the radical student groups enjoyed a broad base of sympathy and passive support from the overall student population. This allowed them to operate and recruit fairly effectively. Once the Vietnam War was ended, this widescale support was replaced with apathy and scorn, if not hostility. Instead of being admired, tolerated, and sheltered, the radical groups found themselves being ignored, shunned, and rejected. Without a sympathetic community to hide among, the radicals were quickley and effetively neutralized by FBI and local law enforcement.
The end of the draft for the Vietnam War removed the primary grievance held by the large-scale college student population, thus marginalizing radical student groups. Similarly, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and ending our support for corrupt and incompetent Arab dictatorships (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia) might win over Arab moderates and marginalize the radicals.
It would be hopeless and futile to attempt to convince truly commited militant islamists to soften their hatred of the West. It would be equally futile and hopeless to deter the GOP from their militaristic approach to the issue of radical Islam. The invasion of Iran probably would have started years ago if Iraq did not prove to be so difficult. War with Iran appears to be a matter if when, not if. My attitude is let the GOP fight whatever wars they want. Ain't no skin off my butt. All I ask the GOP is don't make me fight your wars. Fight them youself.
Comment: Our Iraq strategy is uncannily similar to our Vietnam strategy. One key similarity is the "we can't afford to lose" mentality. I see no signs that we will ever achieve any of our goals, and the costs to us are enormous economically, militarily, and in terms of our global relationships. The author seems to espouse an "ignorance is bliss" approach: careful, we don't want to learn too much from this debacle.
Comment: I just love it when a neo-con cites the "some"--("some think the Middle East culture is incapable of democracy", "some think we we must effect a precipitous disastrous retreat"). The "some" in question are "some" radical right-wing neo-cons citing "some" fictional strawman, all in the service of a massive public relations CYA strategy, enabled by such fair-and-balanced sources as Fox Quote-News-CloseQuote and now, apparently, Newsweek. How many times do these people get to be so tragically and disastrously wrong, and still be given a platform to espouse their ever more delusional views . More false choices brought to you by the 25 per centers. There's never a middle-ground in their comic book foreign policy, it's all black and white. The problem the neo-cons are having is that they promised us Grenada and gave us Vietnam. On steroids. I'm very disappinted in Newsweek for giving this idiot a platform. I want the America of my father back; I'm tired of living in Bushworld.
Comment: "In fact, radical Islamist networks have never lacked for historical provocations." Yes, but it's not about _them_, it's about the moderate Muslims who _might_ support terrorism, or support democracy. The more provocations we provide, the more moderate Muslims will support our enemies through donations and inaction.
Comment: The biggest threat is not "hypercaution" but conducting foreign policy without knowing what you are doing - a trademark of this administration. Contrast this with Dwight Eisenhower's administration. First, he evaluated the threat by educating himself and then lettiing the public educate itself. As he did when he evaluated the Nazi and the Japanese at General Marshall's behest, Ike carefully examined the Soviet threat. Then, he launched the National Defense Education Act. Through this act, numerous universities began regional reserch of teh Soviets and their allies. This successful legislaton educated a whole generation of academics, military officers, diplomats and journalists as to how to best address the Soviet Union and its expansionist goals.
Comment: The lesson is that we have an administration that neither educates itself or the public. Contrast with Dwight Eisenhower and his considered judgement of the Soviet threat. He educated himself as he had done when he evaluated the German and Japanese at General Marshall's behest. After evaluating the Soviet threat, he launched the National Defense Education Act and educated the diplomats, military officers, academics, and journalists. Michael Gerson and his lack of introspection is appalling but expected.
Comment: spontanous
Comment: is it necessary t to attact lrap
Comment: I do believe that the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition forces, but spear-headed by the U.S was predicated upon the removal of Sadaam Hussein rather than on any other intelligence or security factors. And since this lack of security threat on the U.S was apparent and obvious to most American and Germany and Russia, including the U.N, the obvious plan to drive Sadaam out of power was not worth one American life lost in this President Bush's blunder.
Comment: Mr Gerson if you were a preacher in an old fashioned Religious revival I think you'd have to duck right about now. How do you spell pencil necked geek. G-E-R-S-O-N...
Comment: In response to marcusmonroe's response to me:
In every speech that Bush and Cheney gave before and after the invasion of Iraq, they conflated the danger of Saddam Hussein with the airliners which smashed into New York City and the Pentagon. Not just once or twice, but over and over, they manipulated our shock and horror at Al-Qaida' bloodlust, to justify the unrelated, and already-decided, invasion of Iraq. They disregarded so much of the CIA's own intelligence which cast doubt on Hussein's capabilities, and which cast doubt on many of our "sources" who turned out to be frauds. The truth, the facts needed to decide whether Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped militarily and immediately, were ignored if they disagreed with this administration's plans. Again, honest examination of the facts available would have led the U.S. Senate to challenge Mr. Bush's plans far more strenuously. We went to war mainly because we were lied to. I repeat my main tenet: Policy must be based on honesty. My question for marcusmonroe, who said I'm "drowning in myopia" is this: How does insisting that our leaders be honest make me "another old hippy still declaring that 'nothing is worth dying for'"???
I am not a mindless, kneejerk peacenik. We live in a dangerous world, and military action is sometimes necessary. (Afghanistan is a case where immediate and complete annihilation of the Taliban power structure was clearly in our best interests and the world's, and clearly justified. I supported the destruction of the Taliban and the capture or killing of Al-Qaeda's leaders and leutenants. I still do. It still hasn't happened.) Again, military action must be based on an honest assessment of risks of invasion versus the risks of not invading; on an honest assessment of the evidence of the threat; on an honest assessment of possible outcomes, a year, two years, five years later. None of this was done, and we, Iraq and the world, are seeing the
.
Honesty, marcusmonroe. Honesty is the first requirement I want in a president and commander-in-chief--no necessarily an "open-door, no-secrets, I cannot tell a lie" variety of honesty, but certainly a willingness to face uncomfortable facts. I didn't find " some fault--pick a fault, any fault--with George Bush." Dishonesty in my opinion is a pretty big deal. Bush and Cheney are not the only dishonest men in government, maybe not even the most dishonest. But the consequences of their dishonesty has been so grave and so far-reaching as to be unforgivable. As for being "godly," sorry, marcusmonroe, but that's a word I cannot apply to George Bush. Dishonesty is evil. Dishonesty which leads to death and destruction is particularly evil.
Comment: The neo-cons again try to remove moral guilt from their arrogant use of power in the middle east. They advocate something that approaches a permanent state of war. All Gerson proves is they're also in a permanent state of denial.
Comment: "I intuitively sided with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's combative confidence against Secretary of State Colin Powell's caution and diplomacy. But it is now clear to me..."
You mean after tens of thousands of lives have been lost, hundreds of thousands of limbs lost AND A 2.4 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT WHEN IT'S OVER, and now, suddenly, a seepage of gray matter? Drop dead!
Comment: I am stunned by presumably intelligent people now admitting that this was a fiasco. THIS IS NOT NEWS. the fact that some gray matter has seeped into your twisted mind IS NEWS!!! but think about it! It took thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of limbs, and when it's over, 2.4 TRILLION DOLLARS. It is TOO LATE to apologize for your stupidity!!!
Comment: So not finding weapons of mass destruction and sacrificing the lives of countless Americans, Iraqis, and others is a proper excuse for war? Bring back the draft so middle-class America will fight only when there is a really, really good reason to do so, i.e. when they'd be willing to send their own family there. I'd like to ask Michael Gerson how many of his own family fought in Iraq.
Comment: Lesson #1: Don't surround yourself with like-minded ideologues and only listen to them. If you do, you're not qualified for the job and time is your enemy.
Lesson #2: If you're going to say everything with certitude and not waver, then you'd better be right. Doubling down on small mistakes will turn them into bigger mistakes.
Lesson #3: Beware of unquestioned assumptions, such as "welcomed as liberators." This bit of ideological hubris is the wellspring from which many of the worst mistakes flowed (also see lesson #1). If it were true, then the other parts of the "plan" would fall into place (oil money paying for reconstruction, reconstruction money not having to be spent on security, etc.) But of course it wasn't, and many people knew it wasn't but didn't speak up forcefully enough to oppose Bush.
Lesson #4: Beware first reactions to traumatic events, like 9/11. The U.S. has been down that road before, with the Japanese internments (Pearl Harbor) and the Communist witch-hunts (USSR getting the bomb), to name just two. That Americans would want to lash out at someone unrelated after 9/11 is understandable; that a president would deliberately exploit the tragedy to get into an unrelated war he was spoiling for all along is unforgiveable.
Lesson #5: Congress should not take itself out of the loop. Maybe Gerson thinks it "sends a message to our enemies of uncertainty or weakness" or some garbage like that if Congress refuses to give future presidents the kind of authorization they did in fall 2002, but that's exactly the right lesson to learn. We have checks and balances precisely to try to prevent the kinds of breakdowns we had in 2002. The system didn't work then and the media didn't do its job as a watchdog, either, but it IS starting to make corrections now.
Comment: Mr. Gerson makes a "straw man" argument. He states that, "Some claim the American project in Iraq was doomed from the beginning, because Iraqis and Arabs more broadly are culturally incapable of sustaining democracy." Who is this "Some". He's choosing the most ignorant position and claiming that this is the definitive one that he needs to refute. The real point is that the U.S. can't impose democracy on a country that is not a unified nation, and which has zero experience with democracy or the mutual respect for rights that democracy requires.
Comment: This article has certainly brought out the anti-war group. The real problem is that there is no counter-veiling argument available for the other side to respond with. For the 2008 presidential election I hope at least one elect-able candidate (sorry Mr. Paul) just admits it was a tragically stupid mistake and promises to get us out of Iraq quickly.
We spend 400 billion or more a year on military items and we will be as safe or safer the day we leave Iraq as we are today. The real way to support our boys in uniform is to get them out of Iraq pronto. Unfortunately the red state folks seem to be oblivious to this fact.
Comment: Mr. Gerson is delustional at bet. Remember this is the guy who invented axis of evil and the 16 words in State of the Union addres regarding Saddam securing yellowcake uranium which turned out to be false. He clearly states that he is prepared for more American deaths and injuries in a war that never shpoould have been fought. He also in substance stated that Coin Powell was correct on strategy, that Rumsfeld and his mobile force was wrong.
This person is just another one of the Bush whores trying to justify the the mess that we are in and will be for decades. Heroic Conservatism indeed, just another chickenhawk wrapping himself in the mantle of conservaism and wrapping himsel in the flag to be an apologist. This guy should be waterboarded until he admits his book is gibberish.
Comment: I couldn't disagree with you more.... If Bush and his advisors were in power during the Civil War we would still be fighting it today. At some point in time war (using military power) must end and civil law must be given a chance. The USA can not force our values and laws on Iraq or any other country. We have done what needed to be done with our military and now it is time to let Iraq's people decide thier fate. We could stay there for another 100 years and not settle this conflict for the people of Iraq. There is no leason to be learned here unless you believe the Civil War should still be raging with a North and South armies killing each other.
Comment: I couldn't disagree with these conclusions more... If Bush and his supporters were in charge during the Civil War, the North and South would still be fighting. At some point we stop military action and let the laws of the land prevail. We can not force our laws and values on people through the use of military action, we should already know that and this is why this war is now wrong on any level...
Comment: What a mess of twisted logic in order to justify past mistakes and then use the twisted logic to justify continued mistakes. Steady resolve is no substitute for intelligent action. Something this President and the Republican Party has been unable to accomplish.
Comment: And suppose that, after a decade or two, ten thousand or so more American deaths and the expenditure of two or three trillion dollars, we do conquer the insurgency and establish a Democratic Iraq, what have we accomplished? Not a single thing worth mentioning. We have a small nation of 25 million practicing American style Democracy in the midst of an entire region united against it. A region where many of the states have been forced to become Islamic Republics by the process of democraticizing Iraq. A meaningless drop in the bucket of Islamic hatred achieved at enormous cost and as tenuous as a wisp of smoke. Even now after almost five years, there is not the slightest appearance of regime change in Iraq, unless you are stupid enough, self-serving enough and naive enough, like the US President, to believe that a puppet government set up to ligitimize an illegal and unnecessary invasion and occupation constitutes a viable government.
The only thing that can be accomplished by all the effort of the United States, all the sacrifice of its youth, all the waste from its Treasury and all the degredation of its honor in Iraq will be to create a thorn in the side of the Islamic fanatics who hate us already. This war was immoral, illegal and unnecessary and the successive elections were a total illusion, not a success as this person naively says. They performed their function to ligitimize the invasion and occupation but only in the eyes of the invaders, not in the eyes of the Iraqis or the world and certainly no better than the Vichey Government in France, the Quisling Government in Norway and the Japenese sponsered Phillipine Republic. Only a historically deprived indivdual would ever contend that the ethnic violence that has existed between the Arabs and the Kurds for 4000 years and the religious violence that has existed between the Shiits and the Sunnis for over 1500 years, can be done away with from outside the nation; and in an invasion by forces representing an utterly foreign and unacceptal culture and religion to the Iraqi people. The United States, in a rush to judgement and as an action dictated by total absorbtion in its own fears, completely misunderstood what they were getting into when they invaded Iraq (or perhaps they understood perfectly and our leaders just didn'r care because they didn't really know what to do after 9/11) and the result is what will be a decades long Iraq War and its aftermath.
In the meantime our leader can get the fools who constitute the American people to forget about Iraq by staging a new and bigger war against Iran. Americans are children who can be led about by the nose and made to endorse any action, however dangerous and vile, merely by being told "its for your security and safety." Never has such a powerfu;l nation reduced itself to a child like national psyche as has the United States in the last six years.
Comment: I find it obscene that Gerson thinks there's more than one lesson here. There is no lesson other than the obvious one -- it was a mistake. Bush is a mistake. Cheney is a mistake. Rice is a mistake. Our soldiers and the Iraqis have paid bitterly for OUR education and the price is not worth it. The lesson is estimated to cost 2.4 trillion dollars over ten years. Try explaining that to the kids who aren't going to get the best education, some of them because being uninsured left them too sick to learn.
Comment: 'Fess up, now -- Andy Borowitz wrote this article, didn't he?
Comment: Mr Gerson doesn't have any business teaching anybody lessons. Shame on Newsweek for giving this lapdog a platform to communicate this nonsense! Let me suggest that Mr. Gerson get a job selling aluminum siding. He might have better success selling that than this tripe!
Comment: The war in Iraq began as a rational war to display the US might to the area and world. Iraq was a weak country with a hated ruler. Iraq was also a thorn in the foot of Israel and Israel wanted to be free to work their own "peace" on the Palestinians. Why we went to war is clear if you consider who championed the war and their alligences. The same people who brought us the Iraq war now want to go to war with Iran. But, Iran is not the "push over" that Iraq was or was suppose to be. The mighty US has used up its military and could spread "shock and awe" in bombing Iran but could not take or hold the ground.
Comment: The war in Iraq began as a rational war to display the US might to the area and world. Iraq was a weak country with a hated ruler. Iraq was also a thorn in the foot of Israel and Israel wanted to be free to work their own "peace" on the Palestinians. Why we went to war is clear if you consider who championed the war and their alligences. The same people who brought us the Iraq war now want to go to war with Iran. But, Iran is not the "push over" that Iraq was or was suppose to be. The mighty US has used up its military and could spread "shock and awe" in bombing Iran but could not take or hold the ground.
Comment: Allow me to preface my brief comments by stating I joined the Army Medical Corps In 2003 at age 49. I have served two tours in Iraq, volunteering for both assignments. Odds are, I will be serving another tour within the next 2 years. That said, let me now say there is always cause for hypercaution when we place our men and women in harm's way and ask our nation to back our policies without question. Mr. Gerson does a fine job demonstrating pure and myopic inside the beltway thinking, not that of someone who has truly and painfully sacrificed for his nation. It's easy to make the media a scapegoat, however the media has not even come close to reporting the full picture of our troubles in Iraq. The historical descriptions, both distant and recent, of the Shia and Sunni divisions further underscore the lack of understanding thisadministration has regarding the Iraqi, Arab, and Middle Eastern mindsets. I am not a defeatist. In fact, dont dare accuse me of being one. I dont believe we can just pull up stakes and leave on a dime. We need to have a global and futuristic vision of where the world is going and what role a great nation such as ours should play. But please spare me the excuses and finger pointing, as well as the self justification for the administration's ill thought actions. Most importantly, I wish to "thank" the adminstration for helping to create the polarized nation I have returned home to; a nation that is led by name callers, schoolyard bullies, fear mongerers, and the like. We've got a lot of brave young people trying to clean up the messes of Mr Gerson and his ilk- a group that refuses to recognize they are bankrupting our nation, both literally and figuratively. We need leadership and a sense of hope, not excuses and poorly aimed arrows of blame.
Comment: Thank you for your service and your post. I disagree with your short-term to long-term vision of our role in the world. I believe non-interventionism has always been, and will always be the correct approach. We need to mind our own business the vast majority of the time, but when forced to action, act in an overwhelming fashion. When we really need to fight, Americans will always be willing. But We need to avoid involving ourselves in tragic mistakes (as Iraq has proven to be) as much as humanly possible. Ron Paul in '08.
Comment: The war in Iraq began as a rational war to display the US might to the area and world. Iraq was a weak country with a hated ruler. Iraq was also a thorn in the foot of Israel and Israel wanted to be free to work their own "peace" on the Palestinians. Why we went to war is clear if you consider who championed the war and their alligences. The same people who brought us the Iraq war now want to go to war with Iran. But, Iran is not the "push over" that Iraq was or was suppose to be. The mighty US has used up its military and could spread "shock and awe" in bombing Iran but could not take or hold the ground.
Comment: Let's get real. Most of the American people do not support this war. If most of the American people had to watch their college-aged children go to war and return in body bags or if they actually had to pay higher taxes to fight the war, it would be over in a couple of months.
The lesson to learn about Iraq? War is not a game. People die. War should not be fought because a couple of old farts hold a grudge or because it benefits the defense industry or because it might win somebody an election.
Gerson and his ilk are irrelevant cowards who were too dishonest to actually tell the truth about why this war was necessary or how the war has been going these last few years.
Any money Gerson or the other neocons make off the war is blood money, IMHO.
Comment: Let's get real. Most of the American people do not support this war. If most of the American people had to watch their college-aged children go to war and return in body bags or if they actually had to pay higher taxes to fight the war, it would be over in a couple of months.
The lesson to learn about Iraq? War is not a game. People die. War should not be fought because a couple of old farts hold a grudge or because it benefits the defense industry or because it might win somebody an election.
Gerson and his ilk are irrelevant cowards who were too dishonest to actually tell the truth about why this war was necessary or how the war has been going these last few years.
Any money Gerson or the other neocons make off the war is blood money, IMHO.
Comment: A former speech writer for Bush, it's no wonder Gerson is spouting the same neocon rhetoric that got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. As for "overlearning the lessons of caution," Congress and Bush administration haven't learned caution, let alone "overlearned" it--their build up of Iran as the new threat to America is proof of this. Gerson and his ilk are interested only in nation building (regime change), which is unconstitutional, not to mention against international law. Neocons: force-feeding their ideology down the throat of the world.
Comment: A Bush apologist disguised as a thoughtful analyst. Shame on Newsweek for publishing this drivel.
Comment: What a lame account. Iraq is not composed of a single people, who have longed to be a single nation state while Sadaam held them hostage. Iraq is composed of three peoples, who have been forced into a single nation by the map makers after WWI. These people don't really get along, have fundemental problems going back more than a thousand years, and were pitted against each other under Sadaam's rule. What kind of arogance made us think we could turn this into a democracy? The fact that it is not a peace democracy is not a reflection on the Middle East's inability to embrace democracy, its a reflection of the fact that these three peoples don't really want to be in the same country together. Did we learn nothing from the Balkaans? Yugoslavia was allowed to split into several countries which have become much more peacful since they are no longer forced to share power with peoples they dont trust. I suppose oil is the reason we have tried to keep the pieces together.
Comment: The only real lesson learned was that the Iraq war was totally unnecassary.
Comment: He's doing nothing but justifying past mistakes. The threat to national security posed by Iraq was minimal, pumped up with lies to make it seem credible. Attempting to tar opponents to the war in Iraq as racists is poor form, and it doesn't even address most war opponents' motives. Questions about the morality of invading another country under false pretenses are ignored, as well. The real lesson we need to learn from the Iraq war is to always question the motives of your government; anyone who slavishly follows a political leader based on patriotism is a slave, not an American.
Comment: The lesson learned is that the Iraq War never should have happened in the first place.
Why are George Bush's daughters not serving in Iraq ? Would he have said "bring it on" (like it was some game) if his own flesh and blood was in danger ? I doubt it.
Comment: He's doing nothing but justifying past mistakes. The national security reasons for invading Iraq are by no means concrete (and, in fact, were largely false). What the war in Iraq has done is measurably weaken the United States by degrading world opinion of our actions (this is especially true among muslims) and tie down our military forces in a never-ending quagmire, preventing us from dealing with larger threats. Don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons? Too bad, as we no longer have the capability to invade and prevent them. If Israel gets nuked, neo-cons are ultimately to blame.
Comment: How these people justify their self-importance by creating a scenario where military action is required is fundamentally anti-christian. Power comes from the Brain and is maintained by the Stick - not the other way around. This man is just another despot-wanna-be and someone should tell him and his ILk that the Third Reich will not rise again in America as long as there is a breath of Freedom in my body..
Comment: Some motives for going to war in Iraq have not yet been mentioned, e.g., OIL. One lesson to be learned here is that when a country goes to war for oil, supplies do not increase and the price does not go down. Bush did not order the invasion of Iraq for honorable reasons-- he did it for Halliburton. The problem we face now is simply how to clean up the mess that Bush and his cronies created. Bush and his ilk should not be included in this this process as they have demonstrated time and again that they have less interest in resolving the problems they have created than they do in lining their own pockets. Bush and his kind ought to be treated as the enemies of the State that they are, rather than excusing their actions because of their "incompetence". Let him be unapologetic in prison.
Comment: It seems to me, that ,basically, what is being said here, is that regardless of motive, reason, or justification, this war needs to be fought, right or wrong. Is that not killing for killing's sake? It may have been misguided, but what are you going to do? Not fight now? Was this not the mindset that was at the forefront of the decision to enter Iraq in the first place? If we go in, regardless of any quagmire, we won't be able to leave, hence the money will continue to roll in to our friend's coffers. They pay us......everybody wins....except the poor bastards who we convince to lay down their lives in defense of "freedom", and, of course, the locals who simply get in the way. Human life is no different than cattle, here for the pleasure of the power-driven!
Comment: Gerson pulls out a familiar conservative insult ("Some claim... "), suggesting that the left opposes the war out of racism and paternalism: "Some claim the American project in Iraq was doomed from the beginning, because Iraqis and Arabs more broadly are culturally incapable of sustaining democracy. That is a familiar historical charge, made in other periods, against Catholics in Southern Europe, Hindus and Muslims in India, Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe, and Confucian cultures across Asia." It's true that some people have made these kinds of claims-- but they tend to come from the right, not the left. Why not name names instead of using the "some claim" dodge? From Charles Krauthammer, one of the neocons cheerleading the war from day one: "We have made a lot of mistakes in Iraq. But when Arabs kill Arabs and Shiites kill Shiites and Sunnis kill all in a spasm of violence that is blind and furious and has roots in hatreds born long before America was even a republic, to place the blame on the one player, the one country, the one military that has done more than any other to try to separate the combatants and bring conciliation is simply perverse. It infantilizes Arabs. It demonizes Americans. It willfully overlooks the plainest of facts: Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war."
Comment: instilled isnt a word
Comment: Is instilled a word?
Comment: Isn't it funny - the people with NO war experience (they guy is a bloddy speechwriter) becomes experts in war and peace.
Bush and Co has worked for the betterment of the top 20% wealth percentile - I do not think he truly understand the middle class as he is a trust fund kid.
Comment: Enter Your Comment
Comment: Enter Your Comment
Comment: We have been led by history to a simple choice....
Uh... no... YOU led us... by which I mean President Bush led us... to not HAVE a choice... so to then claim the inexorable tide of history CAUSED the invasion of Iraq is the lamest defense of hubris I have ever read. And not one sentence of ... we screwed up, it went wrong, we did it wrong, we were wrong... instead it's the same old unavoidable lessons
Comment: Warmongers like Gerson are apparently incapable of learning form history, recent or otherwise. Worse still, they are completely amoral and think nothing of the tens of thousands of lives that are killed (i.e. euphemism for murder) as a result of their illegal and immoral policies. It's time for Gerson and his fellow neocons to go into a long retirement - preferably at the nearest federal penitentiary.
Comment: What a complete moron. I love listening to Bush Republican types rattle off things that many of us have known all along, and pretend like they're educating the "ignorant masses". So Michael, maybe you're right. Maybe we really do want to be in the business of nation building to the tune of a trillion dollars per venture (we don't but I'll playing along with your pathetic attempt at avoiding responsibilty for the disaster you helped create) but we can NEVER ALLOW MORONS TO BE PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN, because we can't afford to let him learn life lessons on the job that we all have learned much earlier, all the while being arrogant and combative. Your boss is a complete failure at everything he's ever done. I'm GLAD to see you realize that on some level and would be so desperate that you would put out this pathetic tripe to try to justify these horrible policies. Bush policies have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people, all in the process of learning lessons that any reasonably intelligent person already knew, and you helped him do it. I fully realize that none of you care, because you are, by definition, sociopaths who are unable to empathize with the suffering of others, but I'm appalled that Newsweek would consider you worthy of any kind of consistent contributions, other than as a quick window into the idiocy of the worst president of our lives.
Comment: What a complete moron. I love listening to Bush Republican types rattle off things that many of us have known all along, and pretend like they're educating the "ignorant masses". So Michael, maybe you're right. Maybe we really do want to be in the business of nation building to the tune of a trillion dollars per venture (we don't but I'll playing along with your pathetic attempt at avoiding responsibilty for the disaster you helped create) but we can NEVER ALLOW MORONS TO BE PRESIDENT EVER AGAIN, because we can't afford to let him learn life lessons on the job that we all have learned much earlier, all the while being arrogant and combative. Your boss is a complete failure at everything he's ever done. I'm GLAD to see you realize that on some level and would be so desperate that you would put out this pathetic tripe to try to justify these horrible policies. Bush policies have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people, all in the process of learning lessons that any reasonably intelligent person already knew, and you helped him do it. I fully realize that none of you care, because you are, by definition, sociopaths who are unable to empathize with the suffering of others, but I'm appalled that Newsweek would consider you worthy of any kind of consistent contributions, other than as a quick window into the idiocy of the worst president of our lives.
Comment: Fursnake is drowning myopia. The debate on the Iraq war was not based on false assumptions as he claims, but on the absolute need to save human existence on this planet by acting to make certain that Hussein DID NOT have nuclear weapons. America didn't invade Iraq because we thought the world worst tyrant had atom bombs; we went in because the world could not afford the risk that he MIGHT have them, now or in the future. The USA did exactly what it purposed to do: make sure that the Middle East was safe. In other words, our MISSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED.
If America had waited until we knew 100% Hussein had nukes, we would have made exactly the same mistake we made in waiting to be sure of the 9-ll threat. Fursnake and his ilk, in their desperation to find some fault--- pick a fault, any fault--- with George Bush, continue to blame him for allowing even a 1% doubt to restrain their action against 9-11. Now the same critics reverse their standards to blast Bush for acting at all in Iraq. If we had waited another ten years, they would still have protested that Ameriica was "rushing" to war. And if Saddam had used a nuclear bomb in the meantime, they would have castigated Bush for not acting sooner. Come hell or high water, everything must be George Bush's fault. That what a US president gets for being so damned godly.
Such blatant duplicity betrays motives much deeper and more sinsiter than Liberals claim. On the bottom line, Furnskake seems to be just another old Hippy still declaring "Nothing Is Worth Dying For." I'd like to catch him and Patrick Henry in one bag. Furnsnake would immerge rather REDder than when he went in.
Comment: In response to marcusmonroe's response to me:
In every speech that Bush and Cheney gave before and after the invasion of Iraq, they conflated the danger of Saddam Hussein with the airliners which smashed into New York City and the Pentagon. Not just once or twice, but over and over, they manipulated our shock and horror at Al-Qaida' bloodlust, to justify the unrelated, and already-decided, invasion of Iraq. They disregarded so much of the CIA's own intelligence which cast doubt on Hussein's capabilities, and which cast doubt on many of our "sources" who turned out to be frauds. The truth, the facts needed to decide whether Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped militarily and immediately, were ignored if they disagreed with this administration's plans. Again, honest examination of the facts available would have led the U.S. Senate to challenge Mr. Bush's plans far more strenuously. We went to war mainly because we were lied to. I repeat my main tenet: Policy must be based on honesty. My question for marcusmonroe, who said I'm "drowning in myopia" is this: How does insisting that our leaders be honest make me "another old hippy still declaring that 'nothing is worth dying for'"???
I am not a mindless, kneejerk peacenik. We live in a dangerous world, and military action is sometimes necessary. (Afghanistan is a case where immediate and complete annihilation of the Taliban power structure was clearly in our best interests and the world's, and clearly justified. I supported the destruction of the Taliban and the capture or killing of Al-Qaeda's leaders and leutenants. I still do. It still hasn't happened.) Again, military action must be based on an honest assessment of risks of invasion versus the risks of not invading; on an honest assessment of the evidence of the threat; on an honest assessment of possible outcomes, a year, two years, five years later. None of this was done, and we, Iraq and the world, are seeing the
.
Honesty, marcusmonroe. Honesty is the first requirement I want in a president and commander-in-chief--no necessarily an "open-door, no-secrets, I cannot tell a lie" variety of honesty, but certainly a willingness to face uncomfortable facts. I didn't find " some fault--pick a fault, any fault--with George Bush." Dishonesty in my opinion is a pretty big deal. Bush and Cheney are not the only dishonest men in government, maybe not even the most dishonest. But the consequences of their dishonesty has been so grave and so far-reaching as to be unforgivable. As for being "godly," sorry, marcusmonroe, but that's a word I cannot apply to George Bush. Dishonesty is evil. Dishonesty which leads to death and destruction is particularly evil.
Comment: You're forgetting a few things - it's the role of the IAEA, not the US, to ensure nuclear compliance. From December 2002 until we invaded, the IAEA was on the ground, confirming what we know for a fact: that Iraq had no nukes, or nuclear program. The CIA has since confirmed this. By invading, we subverted the IAEA, broke international law, and have greatly increased the likelihood of retaliatory attacks. And it's absurd to think that a nationalist dictator like Saddam, who had a country to protect, would attack the US.
Comment: I read this and I am stunned. The restraint we will likely show with regard to foreign policy in the future is a direct result of what the past six years have shown us. We did not complete our mission with regard to the source of the attack. Like distracted children, we ran off to change the regime of another country. And essentially adopt it. Our going into Iraq smacks of an incredibly oversized ego. The source of the attack of 9/11 was never caught. How can this be? That question is rhetorical - challenging terrain and loyal supporters still should not mean they get away with it. Every day we are faced with what this war has cost, the waste, the flagrantly overspending contractors, the rubber stamping of ever escalating costs, the cost in lives on both sides, the cost of our international reputation, it is endless. And this writer wants to resell the war and rebrand why it didn't go as planned? He doesn't mislead where his loyalties are and that's fair. But we should be asking ourselves the questions that restraint breeds. We are not cowboys. We have to be thinkers. If you get lost while driving, you don't keep charging ahead, knowing you're going the wrong way. We now hear daily how domestic spending needs to be reduced dramatically. Anything to benefit our own citizens is just flagrant overspending. But any restraint on spending in Iraq is unpatriotic. Any suggestion of leaving is defeat. We can't undo what our leaders have gotten us into. And it is folly of historic proportions. But we can rethink our approach, redefine our role and change the definition of our mission before this saps every resource this country has.
Comment: I read this and I am stunned. The restraint we will likely show with regard to foreign policy in the future is a direct result of what the past six years have shown us. We did not complete our mission with regard to the source of the attack. Like distracted children, we ran off to change the regime of another country. And essentially adopt it. Our going into Iraq smacks of an incredibly oversized ego. The source of the attack of 9/11 was never caught. How can this be? That question is rhetorical - challenging terrain and loyal supporters still should not mean they get away with it. Every day we are faced with what this war has cost, the waste, the flagrantly overspending contractors, the rubber stamping of ever escalating costs, the cost in lives on both sides, the cost of our international reputation, it is endless. And this writer wants to resell the war and rebrand why it didn't go as planned? He doesn't mislead where his loyalties are and that's fair. But we should be asking ourselves the questions that restraint breeds. We are not cowboys. We have to be thinkers. If you get lost while driving, you don't keep charging ahead, knowing you're going the wrong way. We now hear daily how domestic spending needs to be reduced dramatically. Anything to benefit our own citizens is just flagrant overspending. But any restraint on spending in Iraq is unpatriotic. Any suggestion of leaving is defeat. We can't undo what our leaders have gotten us into. And it is folly of historic proportions. But we can rethink our approach, redefine our role and change the definition of our mission before this saps every resource this country has.
Comment: Gerson's use of terms like "the war on terror" belies an underlying circular and soft - minded logic: How does a country wage war against a tactic? Like "the war on drugs", such emotion - laden rhetoric serves only to sidestep a difficult truth: There are problems in this world that cannot be solved with force, military or otherwise. Our country made a catastrophic blunder when we invaded Iraq, and the sooner we own up to it, the sooner we'll move beyond it.
Comment: It???s instresting that Mr. Gerson does not admit that he was wrong to intuitively side with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's combative confidence. He also fails to mention the current administration???s failure to side with that combative confidence. The simple fact of the matter is this: President Bush, his advisors and cabinet officials had clear and concise information regarding the difficulties of invading Iraq and affecting regime change. This information was provided to them from the Generals in the Pentagon and Former Secretary Of State Colin Powell. The administration chose to ignore this information. This was done out of sheer arrogance. This arrogance has cost American lives. President Bush, Donald Rumsfield and other cabinet officials are not warriors. Yet here they were telling the true warriors how it should be done. Arrogance.
As a retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer who served my country faithfully for over 20 years until October 2004 I can say this: this administration ignored the cultural and historical complexities regarding Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. They failed to do their homework. Make no mistake ??? regime change in Iraq was necessary for stability in that region and for the prosecution of the Global War on Terror however, it was done irresponsibly. Remember when Paul Brenner took over as the head of the provisional authority? He promptly outlawed the Baath party and disbanded the Iraqi military. This was done at the direction of the Bush administration. The effect this had on Iraq was devastating. Doctor???s, scientist???s, teacher???s, Police leadership, Generals and heads of key infrastructure among others were now unemployed. Only because they belonged to a particular political affiliation. A political affiliation that was necessary for survival under Saddam Hussien???s reign of terror. What happens when large groups of people become unemployed? They no longer have the means to provide for their own security and safety. This coupled with the fact that the administration did not listen to the Generals regarding the required amount of troops on the ground to provide security and stability. This failure caused significant amounts of weapons stockpiles to fall into the hands of insurgents. Disenfranchised people + weapons = Insurgency. History proves this.
This leadership failure along with the ignorance of a culture that is thousands of years old has caused the problems and complexities in Iraq to grow to insurmountable proportions. Disengaging from Iraq is no longer an option. We are there for the long term. History proves this. The lesson to learn is this: next time use the United States Military as an effective tool of diplomacy by listening to the warriors.
r/
Douglas Phillips, USN (RET)
Comment: On what basis do you make the claim that "Make no mistake - regime change in Iraq was necessary for stability in that region and for the prosecution of the Global War on Terror"? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda, and as a secular regime, was opposed to Al-Qaeda. Regime change (which is illegal under international law) has inverted the
