Stop Gotcha Politics on Iraq

In his post earlier this week on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Tom Hayden quotes a line from a 2004 Foreign Affairs article by Lee Feinstein and me radically out of context and infers from it a position that neither Lee nor I hold. The line is: "the biggest problem with the Bush preemption strategy may be that it does not go far enough." It occurs in the following paragraph: "Addressing [the danger of "a brutal ruler acquiring nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction"] requires a different strategy, one that maximizes the chances of early and effective collective action. In this regard, and in comparison to the changes that are taking place in the area of intervention for humanitarian protection purposes, the biggest problem with the Bush preemption strategy may be that it does not go far enough." (Emphasis added.)

The point of the article, entitled "A Duty to Prevent," was not to approve the war in Iraq, still less to encourage another such venture, but rather to make the point that to improve the chances of effective multilateral responses to situations like the apparent build-up of weapons of mass destruction in a nation under U.N. sanctions it was critical to update multilateral rules and to develop the capacity for preventive action far short of the use of force.

This debate has already gone several rounds. Atlantic blogger Matt Yglesias picked up the same line from the same article and drew the same inference in an op-ed in the LA Times last fall. I emailed him and explained, speaking for myself (I am not advising any campaign):

I would not rule out unilateral action under any circumstances; a nation that had chosen to try unilaterally to stop the genocide in Rwanda in the face of both global and regional inaction would be hard to condemn. Similarly, it is imaginable that the United States or any other nation could conclude that it had absolutely no choice but to use force to defend its vital interests. But the entire point of our article was to minimize the likelihood of either of these situations ever occurring by embracing doctrines in the humanitarian and the non-proliferation area that would spur non-military collective action early in the game and would ensure global or at least regional authorization of force if it came to that. It is worth remembering that Kofi Annan himself told the General Assembly in September 2003, after the invasion of Iraq: It is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action." Lee and I had been running a roundtable for the American Society of International Law and the Council on Foreign Relations called "Old Rules, New Threats" for several years before the invasion of Iraq; this article was the outgrowth of a lot of that thinking.

Yglesias quoted this paragraph in a subsequent post and added that he found little to disagree with, although he questioned whether it is politically or legally possible to define "vital interests" in a way that does not open the door to unilateral interventions by many countries. That's a fair question and a fair debate, one that I would happily join with Tom Hayden.

Hayden's post and many other commentaries surrounding the fifth anniversary of the invasion are a microcosm of the problem with our Iraq policy as a whole. The debate is still far too much about who was right and who was wrong on the initial invasion and far too little about how, in Obama's formulation, to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. That does not mean that those of us who were wrong about Iraq -- with whatever nuances, explanations, and justifications we might care to offer -- do not have a great deal to answer for. We do. But it does mean that until we can fix the mess we are in, everyone who cares about what happens both to our troops and to the Iraqi people should force themselves to face up to the hard issues on the ground rather than indulging in the easy game of gotcha.

I'll start by offering a metric for how to assess any candidate -- and any expert's -- plan for Iraq. The test for the best policy should be the one that is most likely to bring the most troops home in the shortest time (to stop American casualties, begin repairing our military, and be able to redeploy badly needed military assets to Afghanistan), while also achieving the most progress on the goals that the administration stated publicly as a justification for invading in the first place: 1) ensuring that the Iraqi government could not develop nuclear or biological weapons of mass destruction (done); 2) weaken terrorist groups seeking to attack us (this goal was based on false premises then, but is highly relevant now); 3) improve the human rights of the Iraqi people; and 4) establish a government in Iraq that could help stabilize and liberalize the Middle East. No policy can possibly achieve all of those goals. But the policy that offers the best chance on all five measures is the policy we should follow, in my view. And applying those measures to concrete policy proposals is the debate we should be having.

Comments

[asiahand]

Glenn Greenwald summed up this POV well so I'll quote him at length. I'd love to see you, Ms. Slaughter, respond directly to these comments (but I won't hold my breath):

[oneangryslav]

"I'll start by offering a metric for how to assess any candidate -- and any expert's -- plan for Iraq," sayeth the Dean.

[alienlovesong]

Until the hawks that got us into this war apologize I don't trust a word that comes out of their mouths. They are deplorable on every level and deserve nothing but contempt.

[adzeman]

Your position seems to be politically expedient. Hillary could take lessons from you. Redefining your enabling support of the Vulcan lunacy doesn't fly with me. First you loved the blood, now you dont?
In my book you dont get to change sides without owning your bad deeds and a profound apology to those whose blood stains your hands.

[iburl]

1) ensuring that the Iraqi government could not develop nuclear or biological weapons of mass destruction (done); &&&& (Um, no, not done. This was not a threat when we started, but now that we have opened up a huge bloody wound in the heart of the middle east, who knows what trouble we will have to endure from this region eventually.)

2) weaken terrorist groups seeking to attack us (this goal was based on false premises then, but is highly relevant now); &&&& (How about "weakening" the terrorists by not living up to the worst, most extreme examples of what they demonize us for, namely killing their families and invading their countries for our own selfish reasons)

3) improve the human rights of the Iraqi people; &&&& (EPIC FAIL! Abu Ghriab was not improved, from the standpoint of the tortured. Also, we have set women back about 100 years in Iraq, so I guess we're right on McCain's schedule to get them back to where they were under Saddam)

4) establish a government in Iraq that could help stabilize and liberalize the Middle East. (You forgot Number 5) Sprinkle Magic Pixie Dust and say "Rumplestiltskin!")

Good Night, and happy dreams, neo-con.

[ConnecticutMan1]

Reading this entire piece is as painful as watching a one armed boxer that does not realize they are too punch drunk to enter the ring ever again... And not understanding "why?" they should never have taken up the sport to begin with.

[tangola]

Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!" Lady Macbeth or is it Anne-Marie Slaughter?????

[eagleye]

Ms. Slaughter,

Here's what I don't understand:

The conversation regarding Iraq in the mainstream media is dominated by people like yourself- i.e., those who advocated for the assault on that country. Why are those who had the wisdom to oppose the War on Iraq in the first place marginalized from the discussion? If two plumbers came to my house and made differing assessments of a plumbing problem, and I made the mistake of hiring the one who was wrong in his analysis, would I call him back to correct the situation, or would I consult with the guy who had it right in the first place?

Further, there has been plenty of discussion about the lies, the bad intelligence, the poor judgement that led us into Iraq. But there has not been sufficient discussion about the fact that anyone with their head on straight should have recognized that the Bush administration was incapable of prosecuting the war competently and honestly. All you had to do was survey the cast of right wing ideologues, and the recycled Reaganauts and war zealots who made up the Bush foreign policy team, and you couldn't help but conclude that we were headed for disaster. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Abrams, etc. How in the world could you expect that a war initiative created and managed by that team could come to a happy ending? They all had track records that should have raised a red flag to anyone remotely familiar with American policy history.

Oy, Oy, Oy....

[jimby]

With all due respect Ms. Slaughter, why should I pay attention to you? You have been completely wrong about the Iraq war in almost every category. And still your lips are flapping (in a most decidedly self-serving way, I might add). Based on your past track record, there is an excellent chance that are wrong now.

In software development there is a phrase that describes the point in which a person becomes no longer credible about anything. It's called "flipping the bozo bit."

You flipped the bozo bit a long time ago. Please move along.

[ebbtide]

Yes, the debate SHOULD be on who was wrong. It should also be on what crimes were committed by George Bush and his war folly. Take the debate to him

How about personally writing to the families that 3,990 American soldiers who were sacrificed on all those lies from Bush and his minions left behind and ask for their forgivness--ditto for the poor kids left maimed for the rest of their lives, physically and mentally, instead of whining on a blog to people sitting and typing in the comfort of their homes.

The debate is who aided and abetted the horrors of a war based on nothing but lies. Is there an election coming up so why don't we just stop talking about who was right? Well I know who was right, and who was wrong and who still refuses to admit that her aiding and abetting was wrong. and has the nerve to run for the highest office in the land, also avoiding the debate on who was right and who was wrong., It is judgement , not the false dilemma you present and all who voted yea, were incredibly lacking in judgement and foresight, unless of course they were doing it as a political maneuver, just in case Bush's war folly was a stupendous success.

Super delegates should review that vote, the subsequent lies during this campaign , gather together now and give us and the party a break. Every time I read the news, all I see is outright lies from the war enabler candidate---and that is not hubris or rhetoric; there is proof , such as the claims that she went to Bosnia because it was so dangerous that the pres could not go, that he sent his wife, and his teenage daughter into that real dangert. She said she had to dodge sniper fire as she landed, put her head down and run for cover( along with her only prescious child, I presume, that in her fabulous judgement brought along for the ride) In a video of that event, clearly shows her being greeted by the welcoming committe on the tarmac, and being presented with a bouquet of flowers by and eight year old little girl, and she bent over to receive a kiss from the little girl.



That is where the energy should be focused---now by the superdelegates, and get behind the guy who said the war was wrong and he did have the wisdom and the judgement you and Hillary did not.

[Romeover]

Thanks, Gallonjug, for that piece of satire.

[vontrapp]

Here's what you say when you possess some actual intellectual-honesty and have the courage to admit you were wrong:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9942

[Argonaut]

If you really want to move on and be forgiven, Dean, a la the South African reconciliation effort, then you need to make a full and complete confession. "I was wrong, let me tell you what to do now," doesn't cut it. I'm sure you won't be admitting to what a clown you have been very soon, so all you deserve is a bumper sticker:

We Were Right. Now STFU.

[peterg76]

"Not far enough" in what direction? The goal, remember, was entirely about oil. When the combined wealth of the United States and the lives of its armed forces were counted as expendable, I'm not sure the issue fits into a more versus less question.

"The debate is still far too much about who was right and who was wrong" The first step has to be knowing who was wrong and never listening to them again, or, in certain cases, impeaching or criminally prosecuting them.

[nutmegger]

I am SO sick to death of these warmongers who cheerlead us into war and then get all up on everyone else for continuing to call them on their horrible, warmongering lack of good judgement. Folks like Slaughter DESERVE to be hounded for their pro-war stance regarding the invasion into Iraq - she and the likes of John McCain SHOULD NOT be allowed to distance themselves from their disastrous ineptitude by claiming that we need to move on and focus on 'the now'. Like most who are looking for change in this upcoming election, my memory is looooong and unforgiving towards the likes of Slaughter. She must resign herself to dealing - and more importantly, atoning - for her sins in this war.

[TheByzantine]

Slaughter breezes past we were wrong to what we need to do now. She does not mention those who have been slaughtered, the high suicide rate among active personnel; the utter abandonment of the veterans who no longer have any usefulness to this administration, the trillions spent to invade a country based on complete fabrications or a president who never has been introduced to the truth.

Somehow, this person thinks she still has something to say despite being outed as nothing more than a tool for a president that has done more to undermine the security of the world than any person since Hitler.