Liberal> Joe Conason> The Folks Who Brought You Iraq

	24 May 2012 Where's the ‘Beef'? Clinton's Answer to Romney Snark For Mitt Romney, the president's greatest vulnerability seems to be that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton … Read More.
	17 May 2012 The Only True Way to Save Marriage From Obama For honoring his conscience on the issue of marriage equality, President Obama earned angry rebukes from all … Read More.
	10 May 2012 What the China Crisis (and His Gay Crisis) Revealed About Mitt Just as aspiring judges ought to possess the quality known as "judicial temperament," a would-be … Read More.

The Folks Who Brought You Iraq

"Well, that's history. That's the past. That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now."

The man who spoke these words is Sen. John McCain, and the subject was the Iraq war and its origins in official falsehood, strategic error and wishful thinking. Expect to hear him repeat those same dismissive phrases again and again as the presidential campaign unfolds.

Understandably, the presumptive Republican nominee prefers to avoid examining how our finest young people and vast amounts of our national treasure came to be squandered in the Middle Eastern desert, since he was among the war's most excited advocates.

There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq (as some of us were not surprised to learn), and in particular, no nuclear weapons under construction as advertised. There were no significant connections between al Qaida and the regime of Saddam Hussein (as the Pentagon reaffirmed in a recent intelligence analysis). There was no legal basis for an invasion. There was no population inviting us to occupy their country as liberators.

Yes, it's all "history," or at least it will be someday, and the historians will properly record McCain's role in the fiasco with all due asperity. But on the fifth anniversary of the war, it is a little too easy to dismiss everything that led us to this point as "what happened before."

With the Arizona senator fresh from a congressional trip to Baghdad — where he preened for the photo ops along with two of his campaign co-chairs, Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham — this is certainly an appropriate moment to evaluate the judgment of the politicians who have promoted the whole enterprise and the consequences of their decision.

How mistaken were the war's optimistic promoters in 2003? The official line on the expected cost of rebuilding Iraq after ousting Saddam was just under $2 billion, according to testimony provided by Bush administration officials. That estimate did not include the likelihood, according to Paul Wolfowitz, the then-deputy secretary of defense, of whether Iraq's oil reserves would cover the entire cost of invasion, occupation and reconstruction.

Five years later, the estimated cost of the war to American taxpayers is well over $2 trillion, including the care we must provide for wounded Americans over the next few decades. Much of the Iraqi oil, of which production remains sporadic, is being stolen and smuggled away.

The difference between an estimate of $2 billion and a cost of $2 trillion could be considered a significant miscalculation, even in a Republican government.

Yet those figures don't quite reckon with the real costs, which should include the rise in the price of oil from around $36 a barrel in March 2003 to well over $100 a barrel this month. Some economists go further, blaming the subprime mortgage collapse — and the ensuing deluge of bad paper that may capsize the world economy — on the effects of the war.

What did we get for all our money and blood? What diplomatic and strategic achievements can we attribute to the war? The conflict over Israel and Palestine has grown more intractable, with the rising influence of Hamas and Hezbollah. The influence of Iran, an avowed enemy of the United States, has risen across the region and penetrated deep into Iraq, where our occupation props up Tehran's allies. The United States military has been badly depleted and demoralized, while our global prestige has dropped.

Still, McCain tells us — and reportedly assured the Iraqi prime minister — of his intentions if elected president. "What we're going to do now is continue this strategy," he said, "which is succeeding in Iraq and we are carrying out the goals of the surge …"

The announced aim of last year's troop escalation was to create sufficient stability in Iraq to permit the Shia, Kurds, Sunni and other political leaders to consolidate a government, provide decent public services and begin reconciliation. Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces there, has acknowledged that the progress toward those objectives is far from satisfactory. Based on the originally stated purpose, the surge isn't succeeding. Predictably, the level of violence in Iraq is rising again, with the daily death toll in March so far doubled from its low point in January.

It is telling when a presidential candidate speaks so dismissively of history and urges us to ignore "what happened before." In this instance, it is a sign of bad faith and worse judgment.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment

I love how he says that "No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq."

Let me quote a little-known article that was released in 2006.

Here is my source:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

This is not an editorial, this is not an opinion piece, what you see from the link above is a SENATORIAL release stating that 500 artillery type weapons that had mustard and sarin gas were discovered in Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

Now, granted, this is not stuff that could wipe out the entire US, but the artillery shells have already been used as IED's in Iraq by insurgents. That information is found here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

Now I've also read that they also discovered 450 aircraft bombs, but I cannot substantiate those claims. If that is true however, it would put the total amount of mustard and sarin gas at about 80 tons, or 160,000 pounds. According to an experiment done, one 55 gallon drum of chemical agent could cause exposure to an area the size of Manhattan Island.

Now as far as the "al-Qaeda" link is concerned, he is absolutely right. We cannot find evidence that Saddam helped them. In fact, Saddam saw them as a threat.

BUT

We're engaged in a war on TERRORISM. And Saddam has been linked to other middle-eastern terrorist groups, most notably the Hamas movement in Israel. We must fight ALL terrorism, not just bits and pieces. It would have been like going against the Japanese in WWII but not fighting the Germans and Italians. After all, the Germans and Italians never really attacked the US, now did they? If we had not brought the front line of the war on Terrorism to Iraq, do you think those who are attacking us now would be sitting by idly waiting for the next American to walk by in Baghdad? No, they would be planning the next 9/11.

We must say, to Bush's credit, that NO other terrorist attack has happened on American soil since 2001.

Comment: #1
Posted by: Austin Jesmore
Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:18 PM

Report this post

But he doesn't want us to forget he spent time in the Hanoi Hilton in another tragic age. Yes, Republican's and those who supported Bucheney's war would love us to forget. Forget the holocaust, too? No blame, no shame. I think not...!

Comment: #2
Posted by: liz
Wed Apr 16, 2008 6:26 PM

Report this post

Already have an account? Log in.