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

[td]

Someone here about four years ago-long after bush's lies had been unraveled, and before millions of lives and trillions of dollars had been destroyed -that his Dad taught him how to get out of the house after he graduated and needed to leave. IIRC, his instructions were clear:
1- Pack your sh** up
2- Get the hell out

[td]

There are a number of problem;s w/ Ms. Slaughter's piece. It isn't "gotcha" to warn us that taking advice from people who have failed miserably is a bad idea. Her last para shows that she has still not gained that insight, as her demands to fulfill W's dreams in Iraq before leaving entirely negate the value of her advice.
Others above have noted that not everyone in every country (Saudi Arabia, anyone?) wants democracy. What W & Ms. Slaughter need to be reminded is that even if you took that magnificent leap of faith, there is still no evidence that W:
1- has an ability to provide democracy
2- understands democracy
3- even wants democracy and freedom for others.
In fact, all the evidence since W was appointed suggests the opposite. If my freshmen turned in an argument like this, full of wishful fantasies and contrary to all evidence, they would fail my class.

[tgk]

"the easy game of gotcha"???

Because of people like you, tens of thousands of people are dead who would otherwise have been alive.

You don't walk away from that.

[mateosf]

No problem, Anne Marie.

How about a fair trade: we'll stop the "gotcha" politics as soon as all of you "hawkish" geniuses who endorsed this war and continue to support the administration's mythical "goals" for its execution go away and leave the debate to another set of geniuses with the following abilities:

- Logical thinking
- Historical perspective
- Ability to analyze objective facts
- Critical decision making skills
- Can manage a budget
- Works well with others
- Don't hate and shout down people who disagree with you (especially when you're catastrophically wrong)

As someone who has a demonstrated lack of any of these skills, you're hardly in a position to be making any recommendations about the "nature of the debate we should be having." The debate we should be having should absolutely not include you and your cohort, because you have no objectively accurate contributions to make to said debate, as proven by your track record.

In the business world, when a colleague consistently loses billions of dollars in executing a poorly-thought-through plan that was pilloried by his peers - even as she belittled and insulted those peers - that colleague not only loses her job, but she is not invited to work in other, similar environments.

"Gotcha."

But I hear the NRCC is hiring. Lots of retirements this year.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

HuffPost's Pick

As I've said before and as this post proves, we certainly haven't learned our lesson yet. More conventional wisdom framed around Pro-War talking points is not in the least bit helpful. We have created an international refugee crisis, a civil war with ethnic cleansing daily, a failed state who is representative of no one and are now stampeding headlong toward Iran like lemmings.

Your metric for withdrawal based upon fulfilling the administration's false premises is both ludicrous and dangerous. The debate we should be having is why people like yourself still have a forum after the humanitarian cataclysm which began by giving credence to such views.

[Namtillaku]

Beautifully put!

[doggril]

EDV is absolutely correct.
That there are still so many who were so wrong about the war who are still around, five years later, to defend their monumentally poor judgment simply goes to show that political punditry is not a meritocracy. Any business analyst who made a comparably huge mistake would be flipping burgers at this point. Or, they'd be working their asses off trying to regain their credibility. Why? Because in business, TRACK RECORDS COUNT. In political punditry, track records are, apparently, meaningless--as they also are, apparently, in politics. Before Bush took this country down so many wrong roads, there were some of us pointing to his well-documented history as a loser--in military service as well as in business-- pleading with those around us to not give him the reins to the country. It was a simple question of track record. Nonetheless, we were roundly denounced as having "Bush Derangement Syndrome." Was there any substance to that name-calling? Of course there wasn't; but it was catchy, and it still regularly shows up in the writings of the right-wing dead-enders. But it doesn't change the fact that we were right.
After Bush was elected, we were told to "get over it." We went back to our lives and continued to pay attention to the world around us. We saw the Iraq debacle coming (which, contrary to the insistence of the oh-so-wrong school of pundits, was laughably easy), and tried to warn everyone we knew about the insanity of invading Iraq. For our efforts we were derided as America-haters. But, again,
We.
Were.
Right.
So, now, one the pundits who got so very much so very wrong is going around tut-tutting and wagging her unrepentant (and, amazingly, unembarassed) finger at the rest of us about "gotcha" politics. And, once again, and not surprisingly, she's wrong. It's not about "gotcha;" it's about track records. And Slaughter's sucks.

[nanoscare]

This isn't gotcha. Gotcha would be if you misspoke or were involved in some hypocrisy. This is a demonstrable mistake in your analysis of what the outcome of invasion would be. We now have evidence that shows you were wrong. This provides a reason to ignore any further analysis you provide. What other sphere of your life would you continue to listen to someone who makes such a huge mistake and continues to deny a mistake was made? Only a neo-con would attempt to change the definition of gotcha to include making mistaken policy prescriptions. We can't afford to listen to bad advice any more. Let us listen to the people who got it right.

[Gregorysf]

Glenn Greenwald comments today on Slaughter's post and calmly eviscerates her.

What I would like to know from those supporters of the invasion who have now seen the light (if they really have) is: just WHAT do you plan on doing that will bring back the millions of lives wasted, the trillions of dollars, and our country's reputation? WHAT? Give me some specific actions, Ms. Slaughter, that you plan to accomplish. Which charities are you giving X amount of dollars to that will help the Iraqis whose lives and livelihoods are ruined? You had a public forum, Ms. Slaughter, and you used it to advocate the destruction of human lives and a country. That's what war does, or didn't you know? The only public forum I had before the war was marching in anti-war protests in San Francisco and the warmongers took no heed of us. Maybe public ridicule of war enablers (thank you Glenn) will be all they get. But those bruises will heal. What about poor Iraq which has been destroyed? Who is going to make that right, Ms. Slaughter?

[LittleBrother]

Somewhere in one of the collections of Garrison Keillor's short pieces, c. 1995-- "We Are Still Married", possibly-- is a funny-because-it's-true musing on America as a "big two-hearted forgiving country".

I'm sorry for spoiling it with imperfect paraphrase, but one trenchant bit involves imagining what it would be like if Hitler survived and appeared on the network teevee morning shows to pimp a newly-published memoir.

He suggests that American viewers would pause between bites of toast to stare at the TV screen as the white-mustached Hitler easily deflects questions about his storied past with good humor: "Katie, that was a long time ago! I'm not about dwelling on the past-- a lot of things happened on both sides, we all have our regrets. The important thing is how we face each new day, and what we do to make the future a better place..."

That wickedly excellent satire came immediately to mind when I read Slaughter's transparently lame and self-serving screed. It's bound to elicit vigorous nods of approval from the rest of the "liberal hawk" infotainwhore community.

The author and her like-minded allies still wave the tattered scraps of their groupthink security blanket in an attempt to distract public attention from the fundamentally lame, immoral, and otherwise wrong opinions and actions that helped to precipitate this maladministration's wanton imperialist aggression and occupation. And that will only increase the possibility that such atrocities will be perpetrated in future administrations.

[vontrapp]

Wrong. Shall we not hold people responsible for their mistakes?

It is vitally important to understand who were cheerleaders of this fiasco. It showed an appalling lack of judgement, and an appalling lack of journalistic ability/integrity. The stories about how invading Iraq was a mistake were out there. The falseness of the "facts" being presented was known. It was ignored by the cheerleaders of the war.

No. It is vitally important to know that your guide has led you into disaster. When you are standing in the middle of the swamp, do you allow the guide that led you there to say, "Now, let's not start pointing fingers. Let's just let me lead us further?".

No. You will be held responsible for cheerleading this disaster.

[Rescisco]

An interesting and appreciated post. The "metric" you have laid out includes the
establishing of "a government in Iraq that could help stabilize and liberalize the Middle East." Leaving aside the very obvious argument that American policy may have contributed greatly to the instability of this troubled region, would an American led effort to "liberalize" the Middle East contribute to stability? How have we arrived at this "mission" aside from the arrogant assumptions implicit in it? Imposing ideals (western liberalism?) however laudable they seem is, one might suspect, a formula for increasing instability. It seems to me that beginning with the unexamined or accepted notion that we (the U.S.) should "liberalize" any region or nation is flawed with a logic that leads to inevitable error if not disaster.

[WASanford]

HuffPost's Pick

The United States has neither a legal nor a moral obligation to protect the world from the nuclear ambitions of “rogue states.” That obligation logically falls to the world itself and is embodied in the United Nations. The United States owes no legal or moral obligation to form an on-going government for the citizens of Iraq; it is a task that only they can satisfactorily accomplish. We should have no ambassador there unless the Iraqi people through their government invite us to. We are simply interfering with those important tasks that the Iraqi people can best do for themselves.

Hasn’t anyone noticed that a young man or woman can walk into an American enlistment office and show up in Iraq fully trained and armed in less than six months time? Yet fully 5 years after our invasion of Iraq that country has no effective army or police force. How can it be that we train our soldiers so effectively but cannot train theirs? Is it because we have no intention of doing so?

There is no good reason for our staying in Iraq. The mission there has changed so often as to lead me to believe that the real mission is to just stay there as long as possible. In George Orwell’s dystrophic 1984, Oceana was constantly at war in the interest of keeping control over its population. There is a lesson in that story that we should all pay attention to.

As they say; the past is prologue. Let’s either admit to the colossal blunder or declare victory and bring our young men and women home

[savertime]

Knowing from whence we came and how we got here is, and will always be, very important to moving forward. I can't not believe someone has the idea that it doen't matter how we got in the middle of this mess. The most important thing we can do is "study" the mind set and all of the politics involved in the Invasion of Iraq. One will definetly need that information before deciding how to get out.

Hillary Clinton believes that we had the right to invade Iraq and still does. LIke McCain, she may be frustrated with the conduct of the war and has finally, after nineteen debates admitted, in exasperation, that her vote was a mistake and that she wished she had not voted for the war. That exasperation was not over her vote for the war, but over the fact that her vote has dogged her through out this campaign. I don't know how many people have been paying attention, but her position on pulling out the troops has "evolved" over the past thirteen months. Is there any wonder why her supporters believe we should "get passed" who voted for the war. My fear is that "cherry-picking" the generals advice will once again determine policy on Iraq.

There really is very little difference between Hillary and McCain, as Bill has stated.

[GManPhx]

HuffPost's Pick

One of the enduring fallacies of Americans, progressives and conservatives, is their abiding belief that every country in the world wants and will accept democracy in its true sense. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Having grown up in Africa, I know the 3rd world concept of democracy begins and ends with one word: elections. In other words have a multi-party election, and after that the winner gets to run roughshod over his opponents. This ignores a fundamental precept of democracy: change!
Where the western world sees democracy as decentralized distributed government, the natural instinct of the 3rd world is toward the chief or king/president. As a result, once the "democratic election" is held, the King/President goes on to destroy the very concept of democracy. But not to worry, in 4 years, there will be another "democratic election" by which time the King/President will have eviscerated or co-opted his opponents ensuring that he gets "democratically elected" once again.
What does this have to do with Iraq? Everything. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that the Iraqis cannot get together, because the "space" has not been created for them to get together, or because they have not had enough time. This line of thinking is as wrong as the night is dark. The Iraqi government cannot get together because they have a different operational definition of democracy, which has been forged from their most basic social and historical structures, and reinforced by their last King/President Saddam Hussein.
If Iraq will be held together, and remain a single stable country, America must find the next King/President. If not let each group, Sunni, Shia, Kurd go it's seperate way to choose it's own form of government. There is no doubt in my mind, that they will all end up with a King/President.

[Donkslayer]

It's all politics. The reason Iraq hasn't been split is because we'd get two new non-allies, at least one of which would likely either be allied to or satellited/puppet-stated by Iran. Turkey would break alliance with the US if we allowed the Kurds to have their own independent state.

There's just no good answer. Seems like the best thing is to let'em fight it out, almost.

[JXB]

How to end the misadventure in Iraq is no doubt the most important policy matter the country faces, and it surely must receive very substantial focus and attention. But substantial focus must also remain on how we got here and on those who supported the invasion, especially (but not exclusively) the elected officials who pushed and/or voted for it. For without accountability for the horrible misjudgment and policy mistake that the war in Iraq represents, we will remain vulnerable to such mistakes in the future.

[javaman]

Please stop being a water carrier for Hillary and look at the history. She voted for the war. period. If you want to try and bury the past, have fun, in the end, it never works.

they simplest solution is usually the correct one: how to end the war? get out now. see, it's not hard.

sigh.