Who’s Being Serious About Iraq?

"Being Serious About Iraq" Rick Esenberg thundered over at Shark and Shepherd on Monday, in an effort to rebut Mike Mathias' assertion that "peace activists" were right about Iraq (an assertion about as controversial as saying the earth orbits the sun). Ese goes on to make a gooey argument that Bill Clinton bears part of the blame (credit?) for going into Iraq because he made regime change in Iraq part of U.S. policy, plus a bunch of intelligence agencies thought he had WMDs, etc. So it's not just Bush's fault.

 

Plus, don't say Bush lied because that's not nice.

 

Being serious apparently means ignoring that the administration stretched intelligence to fit its ends (given the stakes, the Brawler would say this falls under "lying"), something Dick Cheney literally cannot stop himself from doing. Being serious means eliding that the Bush Administration hyped the threat of nukes far beyond what most credible observers, who saw a potential risk of chemical/bio weapons, would support (aluminum tubes, anyone?). Being serious apparently means ignoring Hans Blix's reports that he found nothing and that, with some exceptions, the Iraq regime was cooperating with inspections. Being "serious" apparently means ignoring that people familiar with Iraq's weapons program spoke out against the buildup (Ritter, Butler). Being serious also means ignoring that Bush's rush to war came under serious criticism on diplomatic/procedural/political grounds (Gore being the most notable) as well as moral (Pope John Paul II, who said it didn't meet the criteria for a just war).

Being serious also means making statements like this:

 

Even if Saddam was in check in 2003, it seemed unlikely that he could be kept there.

 

with a straight face. Seriously? How would he have gotten out of "check"? Coalition air patrols had the run of the skies. Does Esenberg seriously believe that Saddam could have rebuilt a conventional army or WMD program without it getting blown up? (And if Saddam was such a threat, why were his neighbors cool or opposed to U.S. action while they supported Desert Storm?)

 

Being "serious" about Iraq also means citing an essay by a noted McCarthy apologist and proponent of invading Iran (who's wargamed bat-shit scenarios of said invasion) title "Why Iraq Was Inevitable." That seems a bit of a determinist, if not a vulgar Marxist, theme for the non-materialist Esenberg, but when you're hard-pressed to defend a war that's killed tens of thousands, you gotta grab whatever reed you can.

 

As one might expect, McCarthy apologist Arthur Herman's essay is bulging with manure. The Brawler doesn't have time to divert a river through  it, so he'll just tend to a few bits, selected almost at random.

 

Herman tries to argue that the U.S. was doing the hard work that the UN wouldn't do. The UN didn't have the stones to follow up on its Resolutions so it was up to the U.S. to do so.  

 

“The case against Saddam, even by the UN’s own rules, was rock solid, and in November 2002 the Security Council did unanimously issue Resolution 1441, ordering him to disarm his WMD’s or face “serious consequences.” Everyone understood that “serious consequences” meant the use of force, including on Iraq's territory."

Actually, the people who hammered out 1441 said -- explicitly -- it was not an authorization for war. Said one: “[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." That'd be dovish U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte (who, arrogating to the U.S. the right to preemptive war, said that the resolution did not "constrain any member state from acting defend itself against the threat posted by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nation as resolutions and protect world peace and security." That didn't work out too well, did it.)

 

Later, Herman distorts the record on Hans Blix's search for WMDs:

 

The president held back until Blix's interim report on January 27, 2003,which even the New York Times labeled "grim." There was nothing in it to suggest that Iraq had accepted the principle of complying with UN resolutions or intended to take any of the steps that, in Blix's words, "it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

 

From theinterim report (which did include some complaints about Iraqi behavior):

 

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

 Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.  The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul.  Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good.  The environment has been workable.

 Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences.  Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day.  These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections.  We seek to be both effective and correct.

Quick -- is Herman's characterization of Blix's report a "lie"? And should he have noted that Blix would subsequently argue the invasion of Iraq was illegal? Or should have have cited these words from a March 2008 columnn penned by Blix:

 

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

Esenberg, no doubt, finds these words unserious.

 

Then, Herman just wanders into the bizarre:

 

Should we have backed off after the Blix report on January 27, 2003, even as the American troop buildup in Kuwait was in full swing? That would have devastated Bush's reputation as a war leader after his resounding success in Afghanistan, and guaranteed that he would never be more than a one-term president (which may have been the real objective of his critics anyway).

 

Is it me or is Herman conflating the national interest with Bush's reputation? Truly, the mind reels.

 

Esenberg says he savored Herman's essay as he swigged some Oregon Pinot Noir. Seems like a waste, as articles like this are best complemented by grape MD 20/20.

 

Over at the blog Balloon Juice, Army vet/war-supporter-turned-Obamaton John Cole says:

 

In a just world, people like me who cheerleaded this disaster would have to pay a price for our foolishness. As it is, I have learned a horrible lesson at the expense of thousands American dead and tens of thousands of American wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars. It isn’t right.

 

One awaits the day when Esenberg can find it in himself to make this leap rather than turn to a McCarthy apologist to make a point that's long since gone past indefensible.

 

For more Esenberg ear-plugging, check out this classic Brawler post.

Comments

[Keith Schmitz]

Esenberg should keep in mind the phrase "never let 'em see you sweat."