In Retrospect

Peter Feaver has a fascinating article in The Weekly Standard arguing that to win in November, John McCain needs to grab the bull by the horns and make the case on the merits that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Feaver goes on to say various things I disagree with (from arguing that the case can be persuasively made to calling it a "myth" that administration officials intentionally misled the public), but he's persuasive on the idea that simply bracketing the decision to launch the war won't work.

DoD photo by Lance Cpl. Albert F. Hunt, U.S. Marine Corps

Comments

I've noticed two retrospectives - in the NYT and Slate - completely given over to the hawks. My, don't we want to know why they went wrong!

Funny that Slate - contrarianism for the cryto-racist - and the NYT - the employer of White House Stenographer Michael Gordon, and the ever rebarbative Dexter Filkins - doesn't load up on - who got it right. Nor of course do they review the idiotic journalism of the first three years -starting with the amazing over-emphasis on Chalabi, and the complete disconnect between Chalabi's popularity with Americans and the overwhelming dislike for the weasel among Iraqis. How good can the journalism of a place be when the journalists can't even figure out, after three years, who is unpopular and who isn't? It is as if the newspapers in France were reporting on the 2008 elections with an almost exclusive concentration on whether and when Ralph Nader will be president. And yet, I will bet that not one retrospective will mention the obvious: politicians knew shit about Iraq, talking heads knew shit about Iraq, and journalists knew shit about Iraq.

The Iraqi elections pointed to the fact that Americans were clueless about Iraqi culture. But this was simply swallowed down and not allowed to effect the idiotic discourse about Iraq, starting with the assumption that some day, Iraq's interests and the U.S.'s will be the same. Some day, pigs will fly. Stupid to begin it, stupidly strategized, stupid not to end it - the Iraq war is a perfect litmus test of stupid. And the stupid continues - although, to be fair, at places like Slate, with its fantastic cast of Saletan, Weisberg, Hitchens and Kraus, that is to be expected.

Posted by roger | March 19, 2008 12:56 PM

This is very true, MY. McCain is going to have to articulate his position. Obama is going to do something that most Democrats have been too timid to do, or unable to do because of their own past actions, and that is challenge Republicans directly on the war. And frankly, I don't see any way McCain wins that argument, unless he goes back on his pledge of running a substantive campaign that doesn't question his opponent's patriotism.

Posted by SDinIA | March 19, 2008 1:05 PM

The arguments I'm expecting to see from McCain are that (1) invading Iraq was the right choice given what was known at the time and (2) it is too soon to tell whether it was the right thing to do in the absolute sense (ie, we will only know in 30 years, just like with Truman in the Korean war).

These are the typical excuses pro-war people give.

Posted by Jim W | March 19, 2008 1:06 PM

Um, isn't this the same Duke professor whose major claim to the public spotlight on the war is his brilliant advice to GWB that he needed to stress "victory" more in his rhetoric on Iraq? And did so while the insurgency was turning Iraq into a bloody mess? I'm a little surprised that MY would suggest for our consumption the views of a man who's been a war cheerleader and slogan-meister (Victory! It's What's for Dinner!) from the beginning. But I think Saint John should follow his advice because I'd like him to argue to the public that our excellent adventure in Iraq was a super idea. Yeah, that'll work.

Posted by scottreads | March 19, 2008 1:28 PM

SDinLA, I'm a little nervous about McC's ability to just micro-lie his way thru it. He'll just repeat the canard "Based on our info at the time," and when the lame follow-up attempt comes a week later, he'll lie and say "well, we knew that whatshisname had meetings with so-and-so - here have another tasty rib and STFU"

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Posted by Brautigan | March 19, 2008 3:40 PM

It is tougher and tougher to say we should accept defeat because of "people being wrong 5 years ago" and ignoring current war conditions.

The decision to stay or go should not also be based on some peripheral areas not working out as hoped - that we are finishing off Al Qaeda in Iraq but we should stop killing them and release the 2,000 terrorists we captured because "Iraq is unlikely to achieve a true secular democracy". That is Lefty thinking in silly non-sequitors that one is tied to the other. Or Hillary's asinine "strategy" of completely leaving Iraq in 13 months or so with the only US military left guarding the embassy - and leaving Iraq with no functioning Air Force, Navy, mechanized army until the Russians or Chinese offer to come in and handle that - in return for all the oil contracts.

McCain can talk to the Center in America about the PRESENT - and not worry at all about playing "gotcha" politics on who was wrong about what 5 years ago, and who was just parroting Putin and the EuroLeft by being fashionably anti-War, not by keen strategic insight. (Here's looking at you and your preacher, Barry Obama!)

Posted by chris ford | March 19, 2008 5:52 PM

Bush's speech, headlined in the WAPO as "Optimistic about Iraq", should help to put the kiss of death on McCain's strategy. Anything the widely despised boy king smiles upon is regarded, and rightly so, as junk by the vast majority of the American people. The Dems should be sure to give Bush a lot of opportunities to say how much he loves McCain's 600 billion dollar Iraq strategy. Toss him the lead life preserver.

Posted by roger | March 19, 2008 6:11 PM

I really like the pic. Some black-headed sheep following an American soldier through a random, dusty alley way in Iraq. Really a nice shot, well framed, and it seems to say an awful lot.

Posted by Rob Mac | March 19, 2008 6:49 PM

That picture deserves the caption:

"American moron wanders down alley waiting to get his ass smoked..."

And this is the "professional US Army".

Anybody who would do something this stupid deserves to get killed.

Every one of those guys should have beards, be dressed like Iraqis, have their weapons concealed and be sneaking around in old Iraqi cars and vans with surveillance gear letting them listen in on conversations and take pictures. That's how you do urban counter-insurgency. The SEALs could teach these people something. Read Dick Marcinko's books.

Even then, they'd lose because they have no credibility, and in 4th Gen War the side with no credibility loses every time.

Morons, the lot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 9:00 PM

Feaver might be right, but I don't think he makes much of a case. There's a difference between claiming to 'show in a forthcoming book' that something is true, and actually showing that it is true.

It seems to me that re-hashing the case for the invasion is of interest only to buffs, few of whom are swing voters.

To say that the decision was reasonable in the light of what was known isn't really to argue that it wasn't a mistake. It's just splitting hairs over what kind of mistake it was. Again, not likely to be of wide interest.

Posted by David Tomlin | March 19, 2008 10:34 PM

I essentially agree with David Tomlin. But as a "buff", I'm compelled to point out to Matt that the evidence shows, a)"the case can be persuasively made"; and, b) that "it is a myth that Administration officials intentionally mislead the public" (unless we're going to expand the definition of "misleading the public" to include a huge percentage of the public statements of every administration since George Washington's).

For those ideologues and mind-readers out there ready to link to "antiwar.com", Code Pink, and Fox News, please first check your dictionary for the definition of "evidence".

Posted by Robert Powell | March 20, 2008 4:45 AM