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

[Namtillaku]

Yes, put aside differences and forget the past. It's not important who said what, or did what. What's important now is to fix the problems in Iraq, to listen to me about how to fix the problems in Iraq.

Riiiiight.

This is how Slaughter, and the other serious war experts, would have you think;

"Imagine if you went to a hospital to have an operation on your knee, and your surgeon completely botched it, permanently shattering your knee instead of fixing it and, in the process, needlessly removing your healthy kidney and recklessly causing damage to your heart and lungs. Then, as you tried to decide what you should do to rectify the damage -- and you sought out the advice of doctors who presciently warned you not to have that doctor operate -- the guilty surgeon insisted that he be allowed to operate again to fix it and that you listen to him regarding what should be done."

From Glen Greenwald - http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/21/slaughter/index.html

[researcher]

the war in iraq is just a hint of what is wrong with america.

bringing the troops home will not fix america. we have much more wrong with our national psychic then the war in iraq. we are a capitalist war mongering country and until americans look into a mirror and see themselves for what they are nothing will change.

the good news. this had to happen. it is nothing more than karma giving us feedback. american style capitalism has to fail and fail badly. goes against every spiritual law that I know of.

the worst of the war mongers in america are the evangels. religious beliefs are not spiritual beliefs.

can you imagine what the universe would be like if american style capitalism actually worked long term? the universe would be about selfishness not love and compassion.

please please do not insult my intelligence and tell me americans are compassionate. 47 million without health care says it all about americans. over 1 million vietnamese killed in that other illegal war and very few americans asking for forgiveness says the rest. or a pres candidate that wants to bomb bomb iran and now leading in the polls.

the most christian nation on earth is not about what jesus taught but about materialism, greed, and power. war is only one aspect of that american materialism, greed and power.

who did jesus have the most problems with? the evangels and politicans of his day. go figure.

[StanAccrington]

This article is inane.

A critical element of recovering from really serious errors is understanding how you made those errors. That's why it is vital that we look at who helped organize support for the Iraq fiasco, and who opposed it.

See http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html for more.

[iburl]

I agree. How would we feel if Germany just said, (to quote Cheney) "So?" after WWII? Germany had to face up to the reality of their collective crimes, and the leaders had to be punished. Sure, there are still some unrepentant Nazis still, but Germany as a whole learned something from their epic failure, will the 23% of Neo-con/Bushies ever learn? Not if we let them off the hook. They must be forced to face their failure over and over again.

[gallonjug]

Dean Slaughter. This is a truly important and insightful post. I was worried at first that it was just one more missive launched in the ego-fueled academic-endemic debates you reference, or a thinly veiled piece of spin for your candidate, as often seen on hufpo. but as I read on, it became clear that in pursuit of the goal you highlight in the title, you are leading by example. your ability to humbly admit misjudgement, and quickly move on to insightful thinking that incorporates lessons learned is sadly way too rare among policy-makers and analysts. And perhaps the most tragic aspect of all this is that now, with the left locked in a suicide pact with itself, the petty arguments among friends are truly emboldening our enemies.

[ObGyn]

Of course you would say it is unimportant that Hillary got it wrong and helped cause the greatest calamity of the United States in my lifetime. But that woman is running on her “experience.” Experience of destroying America? Her other experience: 1992 healthcare project. Face it, she is consistent. Consistently wrong. And wrong for America.

Your other point was: how do we get out? Elementary, my dear Watson. We get out by GETTING OUT.

[rgraves]

Interesting post, but I question a number of your statements. First, pointing out the fact that Obama got it right and Clinton and McCain got it wrong is an indication that Obama is more careful in making a determination of such importance, surely a quality that we want in a President. Minimizing the importance of that difference may make you feel better, but it goes beyond the discussion of Iraq to the discussion of Judgment, so you need to suck it up and stop complaining. With respect to your metrics for determining the best plan for getting out, I find myself offended by your reference to preventing the Iraqi regime from getting WMDs as if that was completed by the invasion. Again, you seem to be trying to make yourself feel better for having gotten it wrong, but the fact is there were no WMDs and no realistic prospects for Iraq to create them, and had we allowed the inspections to continue we would have known that without the devastation caused by our premptive invasion. With respect to the goal of reducing the risk that terrorism against the US would be exported from Iraq, it's nice that you acknowledge that there was no risk, but now you perpetuate the current Bush lie that AQI would "follow us home". What evidence do you have that AQI is capable or interested in attacking the US anywhere but in Iraq? Haven't you gotten tired of being bamboozled by the Bush administration? With respect to the final 2 metrics, they're laudable, but unfortunately I can't see how they'll be achieved without a massive commitment of troops which would require a draft...and we all know that this war would never have happened if there was a draft. So if you have a plan that would achieve your goals, please share it, I'd love to find a solution that fixes the mess we made, but I'm not optimistic, and without a meaningful plan, dragging things out is pointless.

[tbone99]

Who was right and who was wrong is important because when it comes to considering someones decision it s helpful to know their batting record on making wise choices.

[cybersense]

Oh, this is the most sane blog I have read in a long time. Thank you!

I have to agree, and in fact I have been doing quite a bit of homework this. Nothing to disagree about.

[jstock]

Yes, let's discuss how to best extricate ourselves from the Iraq Occupation, but let us also hold those who not only voted to authorize the war, but still believe their vote was basically a good thing, accountable. We have a choice between McCain and one of the remaining Dems. Of these, only Obama had the good judgement to get it right when it mattered most. McCain, I think, actually wanted to jump in there for ideological reasons. Hillary was, is, and will always be all about "political viability," to borrow an old phrase of Bill's. Because she wanted to look "tough," a great many people have needlessly died. A vote for either McCain or Hillary is a vote for endless war(s). Obama '08!

[BusGreg]

I really like your essay, but I have to respectfully suggest that your metric is a bit overly optimistic. One problem that is not discussed enough is the regional distribution of differing Muslim faiths, such as the Shi'a and Sunni tribes. They hate each other and precipitous withdrawl would lead to a common border between Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shi'a), stretching from Turkey to the Shatt al Arab. Unfortunately our incompetent mis-leadership didn't have a clue to the disaster they would unleash by invading Iraq. Or maybe that's exactly what they wanted, and the corporate mass media has been a willing accomplice all along by spewing forth the propaganda emenating from 1600 Sesame Street.
Saddam Insane was probably one of the most despicable pricks to ever walk on planet earth. But let's not forget that he was OUR prick when it came to fighting Iran, who a few years earlier disposed of our then backed dictator by the name of Reza Pahlavi.
Our policies and goals in the middle east have for too long been over oil and how we the west could best benefit. This has fostered an intense dislike for the US and with this last fiasco we have stirred the proverbial Shit storm. Whether we leave now or later, the outcome will most likely be the same. Iran and their Shi'a bretheren will allign with the Iraqi Shi'a, the same will most likely happen along the Saudi border with the Sunnis seeking refuge with their brethern across the border to the south. When Saddam had the reigns of Iraq he provided a buffer between those two nations / sects and kept somewhat of a peace for lack of a better word.
Had the "Village Idiot from Crawford" studied his history and heeded his own Veeps statement from 1994 where Cheney predicted the exact mess wer'e in, when questioned about taking Saddam out. Cheney even said as much in 2000 during a Veep debate. But somehow all that went out the window.
I also blame the American people, myself included, because we are all enablers in one way or another. We keep sending the same sorry bunch of either rebublicans or democrats to serve us, yet each time we are being betrayed by those special interest lackeys. Right now my Democratic Representative is more concerned about bringing pork home to get re-elected then he is in ending the abuses against our Constitutional Rights. (He supports telecom immunity among other questionable votes)
Yes, I too would like to see our troops home NOW, actually I wish they would have never been sent to Iraq, but realistically, I don't have any hopes of this Government to do the right thing. At least not until WE the American people chose to send Independents, Libertarians and Greens to Congress and drive a wedge between the established two power houses, who when all is said and done are all but the same, Special Interest Lackeys!

[KingCranky]

"Right now my Democratic Representative is more concerned about bringing pork home to get re-elected then he is in ending the abuses against our Constitutional Rights. (He supports telecom immunity among other questionable votes)"

Next time you can get hold of him, ask your rep why he favors the privacy rights of telecoms to warrantlessly datamine their customers far more than the privacy rights of the warrantlessly spied-upon customers.

And then challenge him to immediately post online all his most intimate personal, financial, legal and medical information, and that he should just trust that it won't be misused or abused in any way, as that's exactly the arguments made by those backing warrantless spying.

[hopeless277]

We have basically taken Iraq, slammed it down on a table, pulled out our knives, and started cutting it open to see what was inside. We did not use sterile instruments. We had no anestisia. We had no x-rays and the blood tests and symptoms were ignored. We have been killing infections with bullets instead of antibiotics. The patient is almost dead and visibly in agonizing pain. Still we continue to poke around inside with our 10 inch blades while the patient begs us to stop. We do not stop, though. You see, we need the patients blood to quench our insatiable thirst for blood. So, to the horror of the rest of the planet we persist in our operation. In 307 days, it will be time to change doctors. What should the new doctor do? Should we just keep digging around in the patients abdomen hoping to find the latest infection so that we may target it with hellfire missles? Should we try to stitch up the squirming patient with so much damage inside as to possibly require another surgery? Or should we simply walk away and hope the patient heals on their own? Myself, I beleve we have done too much damage to be allowed to continue. It is one man's fault that this patient is in the condition they are in: George W. Bush. No doctor can save this patient now due to the malpractice carried out by said Bush. Our choice is difficult but can no longer be deferred. We must simply walk away. We lack the resources and the expertise to save this patient on our own. We must rely on the patients own immune system now. We must STOP KILLING THE PATIENT JUST TO SAVE THE DOCTOR'S REPUTATION. The doctor's reputation is already runied. Our only hope of repairing the damage done is to bring the doctor and his entire medical team to justice. International justice at The Hague. The path is clear. Impeach, indict, convict, and imprison.

[TheOtherMaven]

Why stop with Iraq? Stop "Gotcha" politics - period!

[elderly]

A fool who makes a mistake once will do so again.

We need to listen to and elect people who were right; not you and your cohorts who were wrong.

It is not gotcha politics to point out that but for your stupidity:

4,000 Americans would be alive today
tens of thousands would have their full complement of arms and legs
$3Trillion could have been saved.