« Churrascariamani | Main | Friday Kennedy Blogging »

I Didn't Think Interesting Memoirs Were Allowed

01 Feb 2008 01:45 pm

Via Ezra Klein, Lincoln Chaffee's memoir really does seem pretty interesting. I think that violates some kind of rule which says that memoirs need to be written by people who obviously could shed fascinating light on important events but who then proceed to refuse to do so. Instead, here we have Linc Chaffee, who no one ever thinks about, saying interesting things. This on the Democrats, in particular, is all that surprising but still interesting to hear directly from a colleague:

Chafee was the only Republican senator to vote against prosecuting the war. "The top Democrats were at their weakest when trying to show how tough they were," writes Chafee. "They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post-September 11 world, and when they acted in political self-interest, they helped the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom. [...]

Chafee writes of his surprise at "how quickly key Democrats crumbled." Democratic senators, Chafee writes, "went down to the meetings at the White House and the Pentagon and came back to the chamber ready to salute. With wrinkled brows they gravely intoned that Saddam Hussein must be stopped. Stopped from what? They had no conviction or evidence of their own. They were just parroting the administration's nonsense. They knew it could go terribly wrong; they also knew it could go terribly right. Which did they fear more?"

It's always worth remembering that not everyone took that path. Carl Levin didn't. Russ Feingold didn't. Robert Byrd didn't. Lincoln Chaffee didn't. Opposition was possible, a lot of Democrats just didn't choose to avail themselves of the option. It's worth recalling that a vicious cycle emerged here. Lots of politicians wanted to vote for the war for political reasons. Lots of "experts" in the think tank world who wanted to boost their own careers therefore found it expedient to likewise trim their sales and talk a lot about the "right way" to invade Iraq for no good reason rather than emphasize how unlikely this "right way" was to emerge. That, however, helped build both public and elite support for the war, which further pressured politicians to get online.

Share This

Comments (32)

Of all your annoying typos, your tendency to fail to negate a sentence, thereby giving it the complete opposite meaning of what you intended, is definitely the worst.

"isn't all that surprising."

Carl Levin didn't. Russ Feingold didn't. Robert Byrd didn't. Lincoln Chaffee didn't. Opposition was possible, a lot of Democrats just didn't choose to avail themselves of the option.

And yet what has it done for their careers? OTOH, look at what has happened with the pro-war folks.

As I keep saying, Madison didn't write "certain politicians will always have the gonads and virtue to stand up and do the right thing and that'll protect our liberty" ... Madison wrote "ambition must be made to counteract ambition".

The problem isn't that we don't have enough Carl Levins, Russ Feingolds, Robert Byrds and Linc Chafees, the problem is that too many in our chattering classes have an aristocratic disdain for democratic politics and have convinced everyone (even if everyone disdains the chattering classes for their obvious aristratic agenda ... they mistake that agenda for liberalism, which actually re-enforces everyone's thinking here -- "if even the liberal media think Sen. X has gone too far ..."), helped by the ascendency of premillenialist thinking (Mead was right -- we are slouching towards a new Dark Age) to have the same disdain. So ambition is not being made to counteract ambition, because everyone feels they have to go through this "I'm not ambitious" silly dance in order to realize their ambitions.

People say we're too cynical about motives nowadays? We always were that cynical, if not more so. The problem is that we expect that we shouldn't have to be cynical. We should say "I don't care why Sen. X is making a stink, I'm glad she is" rather than "Sen. X is making a stink just to get ahead".

If we did so, then it would have been more than just the Sens. you mentioned who would have stood up and opposed the war.

Well, you can argue about which way causality works in that last paragraph. It seems to me to be more of a broad cultural problem. You're never in trouble for being "too hawkish"-- just ask John McCain. And the media's been pretty happy with the "tough GOP" and "vulnerable Democrats" storyline for the past 25 years or so. So it's always the easier, gutless path to support Invasion X.

Unless of course it's on humanitarian grounds.

Carl Levin didn't. Russ Feingold didn't. Robert Byrd didn't. Lincoln Chaffee didn't...

And yet what has it done for their careers?

Well, for one thing those particular folks will escape hanging when all of the other, "politically shrewder" Congress-creatures are tangling from ropes...

"Opposition was possible"

Opposition was certainly possible. But stopping the invasion wasn't possible.

There was no way to get 51 votes against. And that factored into Dems' decisions in a major way.

Just curious, what is the cynical reason that so many blog-pundits (left-of-center, at least) supported the invasion? Is it the same self-interested reason as that for Democrats and think-tankers?

"Just curious, what is the cynical reason that so many blog-pundits (left-of-center, at least) supported the invasion? Is it the same self-interested reason as that for Democrats and think-tankers?"

Matthew's final paragraph certainly is humorous in light of his support for the invasion.

Re "Chafee writes of his surprise at "how quickly key Democrats crumbled."
------------
Chafee must not have looked at the FEC campaign finance reports.

nvs,

I think they were taken in by the NeoCon arguments about democracy in the Middle East - the temptation of putting universalist, liberal principles to the ultimate test.

In addition, I would think that they suffered from the same psychological needs as most Americans at the time. I imagine at least part of the reason was that there was a very human and natural desire for vengence among people in general. Osama bin Laden wasn't caught and Saddam was close enough psychologically speaking.

Opposition was certainly possible. But stopping the invasion wasn't possible.

But there's value in being right. Not just moral value (although that should count for something), but political value. The Democrats likely have won the White House in 2004 if the candidate had opposed the war. And the Democratic Congress would have had more political power to oppose the war after the 2006 elections if their leadership had not supported it for years. In order to prevent bad descisions that are based on political risk aversion, you need to increase the risks for the politically "safe" choice. Rewarding those who made the "safe" choice is the opposite of what we should be doing.

Re Norway's comment "I think they were taken in by the NeoCon arguments about democracy in the Middle East "
--------
They were taken in by the fact that the Democrats' biggest campaign donor in 2000-2002 was an Israeli billionaire --who was signaling his feelings pretty clearly via dogwhistles Kenneth Pollack and Marti Indyk.

And that's just ONE of the billionaires.

I don't think Clinton's vote for the war is a help to her right now. I think she might have been unbeatable without that on her record. The weakness really showed trough last night as she buried Obama in the first part of the debate and floundered when it came to Iraq. And it hurt Edwards as well, though not in the same way, because he was from a red state and Hillary from a blue one with strong pro-Israel leanings.

Just because some people thought it was a bad idea, and just because it turned out to be a bad idea, doesn't mean that those people who thought it was a bad idea should have carried the day. For one thing, it may have gone wrong for reasons unrelated to what they feared. For another (related) thing, they may have claimed there was a 90% chance it would go wrong, but the way in which it went wrong may have been a 1% scenario. Lastly, they may have been making an ethically callous or ridiculous argument.

These are all real possibilities, not just for high school debaters. Let's take them in order. (1) One factor in the disaster was the lack of competent planning, and lack of commitment to adequate military presence. These looming failures weren't known before the war, and there was no reason to believe the US government would commit those errors. (2) This is kind of a metaphysical point, and it's intimately related to the first one, but if (say) US troops hadn't fired on the crowd in Fallujah a few weeks after the fall of Saddam, neo-Baathist opposition might not have crystallized, which in turn permitted the rise of the so-called AQI. There are contingencies at work in history, and sometimes everything just goes wrong. (3) The argument that we shouldn't overthrow Saddam Hussein because he only harmed Iraqis is callous, and the argument that his government was the legitimate repository of Iraqi sovereignty, and therefore couldn't be replaced by force, is ridiculous.

They did trim their sails, but it didn't "trim their sales" any.

I like the malaprop "trim their sales".

Re Petey's comment "But stopping the invasion wasn't possible"
----------
Bullshit. Why is it that a Democrat in the majority is so fucking helpless but a Republican in the MINORITY has the strength of 10 men?

Ever hear of filibuster? Of demand for evidence?
"Advise and consent"? "Power to declare war"?

A faction in the Democratic Party WHORED themselves to the Israel Lobby -- and 4000 soldiers have died unnecessary deaths as a result.

Its that simple.

Matt,

What are you talking about? Don't you know that you're either with Bush or "with the terrorists"? Obviously Lincoln was supporting the terrorists.

The Democrats likely have won the White House in 2004 if the candidate had opposed the war.

Bulshitt. Any anti-war candidate would have been flayed alive by the GOP. 15+% loss guaranteed.


Not to mention the increased losses in the 2002 elections.

I Didn't Think Interesting Memoirs Were Allowed


Never buy a book whose author is pictured on the cover.

For another (related) thing, they may have claimed there was a 90% chance it would go wrong, but the way in which it went wrong may have been a 1% scenario.

The truth is that it was more like the reverse -- going right was a 1 percent scenario, going wrong 90 percent. This was pretty obvious at the time to any unbiased observer not prone to wishful thinking, and is still obvious in retrospect.

That particular election season was poisonous. What I'd like to hear from Hillary is an acknowledgement of that, and a promise never to 'launch a product' in August designed to create that noxious climate in Congress. As Petey says, there was never any likelihood of a majority of senators voting against the AUMF, and a lot of ass-coverage. Heck, Mary 'Please, Kill New Orleans Some More' Landrieu is still given special dispensation to vote against her party when the numbers are there to stop cloture passing.

As for Chafee, he's insightful because he's part Zelig and part 'Accidental Last Rockefeller Republican'.

Ultimately, American politicians will never be punished up-front for promoting the bombing and invasion of other countries until the US is itself subject to the conditions it imposes on those countries.

Never buy a book whose author is pictured on the cover.

Uh-oh, guess I'd better return my new copy of the Penguin Classics edition of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, then.

"I think they were taken in by the NeoCon arguments about democracy in the Middle East - the temptation of putting universalist, liberal principles to the ultimate test."

Too bad the neocons couldn't have been as incompetent at reshaping US politics as they were at reorganizing Iraq.

Back in the day, I wasn't rabidly in support of the war, but could understand the sorts of rationale I was reading in Foreign Policy and the like: the blockade of Iraq was breaking down, and France, Russia, China, and the like were probably going to pull the plug on it in the UN. Ergo, invade now or redo a Kuwait-like situation later on less advantageous terms. What it really came down to was that the Administration had no patience for diplomacy, but after 9/11 a lot of us were in the mode to take the rest of the trash out to the street while we were at it.

So, that said, I won't quibble with Rich's points in detail. Rather, I'll point out that the Administration didn't lay out a detailed post-war plan to Congress, not even behind closed doors to the Armed Services committee as best I can tell. Ergo, an intelligent Senator might have wondered if all the ducks were in a row.

As an aside, as a wage earner, I've never understood why Senators, the vast majority of whom are not a few months of unemployment away from food stamps, can't grow a pair at times like the run up to the war and shoulder these kinds of responsibilities.

Re cmholm's comment "Ergo, invade now or redo a Kuwait-like situation later on less advantageous terms."
-----------
Saddam was 66 years old. Was he really going to mount a jihad in his late seventies? With what?

Any time he assembled his tanks on his border, a groups of B52s from Diego Garcia could bomb it into rubble. The interesting question is why George H didn't do that in 1990 instead of sending April Glespie into Tehran to give Saddam a green light to take over Kuwait.

And Saddam's two sons were more likely to kill each other in a gunfight over who got to walk through a palace door first than to maintain Saddam's control.

This is dead-on from Chaffee. Prominent Senators (Kerry was particularly hawkish, Clinton had her moments on the floor as well) were the key rhetorical leaders pushing the war aside from Bush. How many times have we heard some version of "Well even Democrats thought Saddam had WMD!" or, "even French intelligence knows he's got 'em ... the French just hate us!" Democrats were in a position to do one of the following:

1. Take Bush at his word and give him unchecked authority to interpret the results of any inspections resulting from UNSC Resolution 1441.

2. Set a date to reconsider whether or not Iraq had fulfilled the obligations set under 1441 and require Congress (or appropriate committees therein if sensitive intelligence is at issue) to determine whether Saddam had met the standards of the agreement.

The fact is, Hillary's argument that she was voting for inspections and trusted Bush to see them through simply doesn't hold water in light of Bush blatantly ignoring Hans Blix's reports of rapidly increasing cooperation leading up to the invasion. Saddam called our bluff in early 2003 and quickly capitulated to any requests of inspectors (spy plane flyovers, destroying missiles despite American troops massed on his border, interviews with scientists in private, digging up hazardous VX dumps to try and prove they destroyed everything back in the 90s...) What evidence did Bush present that inspections were failing in March? Even his ultimatum to Saddam to book it out of Iraq was laughable when it was followed by Shock-and-Awe before he'd have had time to bail if he wanted to.

The entire mess was completely contrived (so said Blix, everyone but Britain on the UNSC, and impartial critics in America at the time), and by not speaking up for common sense in the weeks immediately preceding the war, Democratic Senators are undoubtedly complicit in the result. Voting for the AUMF was one flawed choice months in advance of the war; I'm glad Hillary's taking heat for being uncritical in October '02. However, keeping their mouths shut in early 2003 had far worse consequences.

Obama's failed in letting Hillary pigeonhole his record on the war to one speech in 2002. Fact is, a couple weeks before the war began (ie when it was obvious that Bush was going regardless of what Blix said), here's Obama: State Sen. Barack Obama (D) "is criticizing the idea of war against Iraq and challenging" his Dem opponents in the SEN primary "to take a stand on the question." Obama said Dems looking to unseat Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R) "should speak up now" on their views on the subject. Obama: "What's tempting is to take the path of least resistance and keep quiet on the issue, knowing that maybe in two or three or six months, at least the fighting will be over and you can see how it plays out."

He was at an anti-war rally just a few days before the invasion. He really needs to put together a timeline of his record of being outspoken in favor of, you know, common sense at the time and contrast it with the frightened, cynical bet hedging that epitomized Congress at the time.

"But there's value in being right. Not just moral value (although that should count for something), but political value."

For most people, being right about important things is less important than agreeing with me about my pet issue.

66? Hell, Saddam was just hitting his stride as a national leader, age-wise. The only thing making an air campaign straight forward was the UN mandate. If that were gone, action would have been a major PINA.

IMO, it was pretty clear that Qusay would have neutralized Uday by one means or another whenever the old man passed the baton.

I don't think Clinton's vote for the war is a help to her right now. I think she might have been unbeatable without that on her record

It might seem that way now, but it isn't true.

Any prominent Democrat with presidential ambitions who opposed the war would be labelled as crazy. Opposition to the war would be the basis for the tarring. Then, after the war was seen to be foolish, they would be seen as right about the war, but unfortunately, crazy. The crazy tar doesn't wash off.

Howard Dean, a moderate or possibly even conservative Democrat was tarred with the crazy brush because of his opposition to the war. He's been proven right, but the tar doesn't wash off. Much of the country will always remember him as that radical leftist anti-American crazy guy who just happened to be right about the war.

Obama was not considered a presidential threat until it was too late.

Let's remember another senator who voted against the resolution. From an AP story September 27, 2002

"Paul Wellstone finds himself in what could be a tough position - opposing a White House-requested resolution backing military force against Iraq as Election Day nears.

"Among Senate Democrats facing tough re-election battles, Wellstone, D-Minn., is alone in coming out strongly against the resolution. His GOP challenger, Norm Coleman, is using the issue to try to paint Wellstone as an extremist.

Hillary is one of the Democratic Party's marquee players. We who saw the dangers of this unnecessary war were looking for her to lead on this issue, the most important of all. She caved and richly deserves all the difficulty she has now trying to defend her vote.

Leadership...an illusive thing in DC.

Chafee was always, always a remarkably decent dude as was his dad, and always the name I invoked when people mindlessly bashed "Republicans."

Crypto-Zionism was the psychological lever pulling too many Left/Liberals into cheering on the War. Of course, there were other reasons, but that was huge. In some cases, it's even an unconscious bad choice. But, a re-armed Saddam was a threat to whom? Finland? The Maldives?


Comments closed February 15, 2008.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.