In what I hope does not become a trend, liberal columnist Mark Brown, of the Chicago Sun Times, wonders aloud if the anti-war crowd was wrong about Iraq. His article in italics. My responses throughout.
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
by Mark Brown
Let's start with this headline. Right about what exactly? The WMDs? Saddam's connection to 9/11? The Mission Accomplished speech? The cost of the invasion and subsequent occupation? This headline is meaningless, because Bush has changed his justification for the invasion as his numerous lies have been exposed. If Bush had claimed from the outset that we were invading Iraq to bring freedom and democracy (a claim which came much later), then he has been "proven right" only in the sense that might makes right.
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
I am like you. Except I did join the protests, as did millions of people of conscience around the world.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
"The rabble" you describe celebrating the toppling of that statue were players in a Pentagon PR stunt. Watch Control Room and tell me otherwise.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
Mark, your column is more revealing for what it leaves out, than for what it mentions. Let's not forget about the systematic torture of (mostly innocent) detainees at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. Or about the fat no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton. Or about the troops driving around without proper armor on their vehicles. Or the back door draft. Or the fact that CIA and military experts now believe we have created a training ground for terrorists in Iraq. In fact, this laundry list only scratches the surface of the many outrages we've seen since the initial shock and awe campaign.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
You make my outrage sound so well-mannered. Perhaps I voted against Bush because I think he's a corporate stooge, a dangerous bully, an insufferable liar and a war criminal.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
I'm not at all surprised that, as you say: "freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people." Is this a surprise to you? All people yearn to be free. The Iraqis are not genetically predisposed to love tyranny. This should not be news to anyone. The free elections that happened over most of Iraq the other day are a truly great thing. It would be foolish for me to argue otherwise. But it would also be foolish to assume that this moment forgives what came before it. Does might truly make right? Should we all just submit to the kind of amnesia you endorse?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
No, but this shoddy piece of reasoning certainly is.
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
Not likely. If anything you've just cheered up all the right wing bloggers who have been itching to see a liberal flip-flop on the war. I predict that your column will be bigger news in the right wing echo chamber than the election itself. The only blood boiling generated by your piece will be on the anti-war side.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Really? It hardly occurred to you that a long-oppressed people might be enthusiastic to vote in a free election, no matter how said election came to pass? Must the sight of Iraqis celebrating their right to vote negate the anti-war position?
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
Again, what a fascinating specimen is this simple Iraqi. Just look at the exotic workings of his mind.
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
It's one thing to assume you speak for all anti-war liberals. Quite another to play therapist too.
Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
You're not convincing me. Unless you want to start installing democracies all around the world. It's gonna take a lot more tax dollars to make the whole world free.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
So, not today. But soon, we'll all be drinking that Kool Aid, eh Mark?
I don't want to get carried away in the moment.
Too late.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
That's right. The messages were terrible. Not the casualties.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Wow, you still have a grip on reality.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
OK, so you haven't completely lost your marbles.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Wow, I had you wrong from the start.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Oh man. You just lost me again Mark. Is it possible that the elections are the silver lining in this whole nightmare? Must we assume that the Iraqis are grateful that we've "forced" anything on them?
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
Wow, you're curious about that? I kinda assume Bush will do whatever he feels like doing.
So is the rest of the world.
So it wasn't enough to speak for all the leftists, now you gotta speak for the whole world?
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
Yeah, that's what I've been thinking ever since Bush crowned himself emperor. Cut the guy some slack. Don't second guess him.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Uh, no thanks.
Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
No fucking comment.
"Nothing would disgust me more morally than receiving an Oscar. Nothing in the world would make me accept it. I wouldn't have it in my home." - Luis Bunuel
