So what should be made of the Iraq War and history’s verdict? Cathy Young looks at this question on RealClearPolitics. Here’s how she starts:
As the United States’ combat mission in Iraq draws to a close, it is fitting to look back on the war and its legacy so far. In most left-of-center commentary, the folly and criminality of the war in Iraq is now an article of faith, and anyone who ever supported it has a black mark against him. Yet, as someone ambivalently pro-war in 2003, I remain unrepentantly ambivalent and far from certain about history’s eventual verdict. Ironically, President Obama’s August 31 Oval Office speech marking the war’s official end reflects nothing if not ambivalence, Obama’s early anti-war stance notwithstanding.
Some facts are undeniable: the weapons of mass destruction of which Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession was the ostensible reason for the invasion never turned up. It is also fairly clear that, in the buildup to the war, the Bush White House disregarded evidence that did not fit its casus belli — though it is a far cry from that to the charge that Bush deliberately “lied,” and the belief that the Saddam Hussein regime was hiding WMDs was widely shared among Democrats.
Few would also dispute the conclusion that the war and the occupation was badly mismanaged from the start, due in large part to the previous administration’s arrogance and incompetence — with tragic results for far too many U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians.
But what if we had not gone to war?
Go to the link and read the rest…
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.