An Assessment Of Iraq

Political scientist Dr. Steven Taylor’s great blog Poliblog is in our Right Voices column. TMV has quoted Taylor for years since he is supremely independent in his thoughts and analysis. And on the Iraq war he once again offered readers his own take on events free of “blogspeak.”

Now, in light of the upcoming Petraeus report he gives this take on Iraq. Here is a small part of it:

Anyone who has been reading this site of late knows that I have been critical of the administration over the issue of Iraq. Further, long-term readers will know that I was initially in favor of the invasion, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that I accepted the assertions that Saddam Hussein was indeed actively pursuing a variety of WMDs and that he was actively sponsoring terrorism. The fact that he was a vicious dictator and the fact that I believed that the Iraqi people could be made better off without him in power and the fact that it was possible that a Saddam-less Iraq could be good for the security goals of the United States and its allies added to the factors above led to my support.

Later, he argues that both sides are oversimplifying the situation, consequences and options and writes:

We ended up where we are right now based on insufficient criticism (at least in terms of scope and depth—I am well aware that there were pre-war critics who turned out to be right) and an inadequate public discourse. Put another way: the administration is acting now about Iraq the way it acted about Iraq prior to the invasion—as if there is an easy route to success if we would just let them do what they want. However, we let them do what they wanted and the situation is a mess that is unlikely to be fixed any time soon. As such, it would be useful if the administration would be a bit more somber, a bit more reflective and a bit more honest with itself and with us over what can and cannot be done and what the costs will be. Facile assertions about “victory” or “cutting and running” or even talking about AQI are not policy positions, but instead sloganeering at best.

Read it in FULL — since this only gives you the tip of the iceberg of his argument and assessment.

Taylor is correct. This administration has repeatedly chose to frame choices in the most politically polarizing manner. As a result of using the words “victory” or “defeat” and suggesting that those who have various reasons for opposing the war, its consequences, or question its longterm impact on overall U.S. military preparedness merely want to “cut and run” (codewords for calling them cowards) it has fed a similar rhetorical response on the other side.

There have been administrations that have sought to bring foes into the fold by adeptly short-circuiting their anger and outfoxing them politically. This one consistently tries to trigger support by creating alarm among its own supporters at what the other side advocates. Its slogan should be “mobilize and demonize.”

LBJ once talked of a foe and said it was wiser to have him on the inside of the tent pissing out, then on the outside of the tent pissing in. That hasn’t been the motto of the Bush administration.

So when the history of the war is written, the section on mismanagement will contain a political component as well.