Is It Good That Iraq Has Been A Disaster?

This is the kind of question I don't like asking, because it will inevitably lead many to think that I'm suggesting that it's good that innocent people--including innocent American soldiers--have died. It should go without saying that I'm asserting no such thing.

As readers of this blog know, I wanted Saddam out, and think that military action to take him out was probably warranted. Or, rather, it would have been warranted if more alternatives had been pursued first, if the action had actually been undertaken for humanitarian reasons, if the administration had been honest about its reasons, and if there had been anything like a plausible plan for post-war reconstruction.

But none of the above conditions was met. It is still possible that everything will work out for the best in the end, of course. And--again, needless to say--I hope that happens.

Funny thing about democracy is is that it's basically rule by the uninformed. Contrary to one reasonably popular belief, the common man isn't stupid; he's just woefully uninformed about politics. The average carpenter--noble though his profession might be--knows about as much about public and foreign policy as I know about carpentry. I mean, I can hammer a nail, but you don't want me building your house. Hell, I don't know that much about policy, and I'm almost a policy wonk.

It is perhaps one consequence of this that presidents are judged on the basis of the results they achieve, not on the basis of how smart their policies are--that is, not on how likely their policies were to achieve positive results. Most people don't understand the policies, and don't understand the alternatives, and so have nothing to go on but the outcome; if it's good, they conclude that the policy was good, if it's bad, they conclude the policy was, too.

It would have been a gift from the gods had W's ill-conceived Iraq adventure gone well. But gifts from the gods often carry hidden costs. My concern is that, had that happened, it would have made distortion of evidence, lying about reasons for policies, and rushing to war seem like reasonable courses of action. Or, more precisely: if things had gone well, it would have made these things easier in the future. As I've written before, there is absolutely no way that the American people are going to demand--and recognize--the truth about this war unless it goes badly in an undeniable way. Most people still have their patriotic blinders on, and those things don't come off easily.

And this is not merely (or "merely") a matter of setting the historical record straight; it's also about how America will conduct itself in the future. If this whole stupid, rotten, sordid Iraq fiasco had gone well, the long-term consequences for the country and the world might have been even worse than they will be if it goes badly. By encouraging dishonesty--intellectual and otherwise--among our leaders, painless success in Iraq might have made similar actions more likely in the future. And it is rather difficult to think of anything that would be more harmful to the nation and the world in the long run.

Note that I assert this recognizing full well that a defeat in Iraq would be devastating, a disaster of world-historical proportions. I in no way underestimate the costs of such a defeat. But such a disaster might pale in comparison to the havoc that would be wrought by an America that has decided that facts and logic are malleable things, to be bent to the will of the president, and that war is a thing that can be undertaken lightly.

It is possible, then, that the best outcome we can hope for in Iraq is a costly and painful victory. That is exactly what we seem on course to achieve. Paradoxically, such a mixed blessing may be the very best thing we can hope for.