Did Bill Clinton Oppose The Iraq Invasion From The Beginning?
Daniel Finkelstein says no, and he seems to be right. As Finkelstein notes, Clinton may have failed to support the invasion from the beginning...and, we might add, he may have opposed it from fairly early on. But it seems that he didn't oppose it from the beginning.
I guess I don't have to keep repeating that I think that the reasons for deposing Saddam were fairly strong, and that my opposition to the invasion was based on two things: (a) the conviction that retribution for 9/11 and elimination of OBL and al Qaeda should take precedence over the entirely unrelated, non-pressing, long-term goal of dealing with Saddam, and (b) an inchoate and rather difficult-to-defend conviction that the obvious and overwhelming dishonesty of the administration's case for invasion should somehow count against that policy, even in the face of certain independent reasons in favor of it.
As I've said before, I think that those who actually favored invasion on moral and 1441-related grounds had an at least marginally defensible position. (It seems fairly clear that those weren't the administration's reasons...though no one has ever been able to figure out what their reasons actually were... But that's not what I'm interested in here.) At least in this piece, Clinton's reasons seem quasi-defensible to me. The obvious response to that claim, however, is to appeal at least to the (a)-type reasons I cite above: it was virtually the stupidest of all possible times to undertake a mission against Saddam (who was, after all, and in addition to whatever else he may have been, an enemy, not an ally, of OBL's). In retrospect it's clear that it was a mistake that contributed to the escape of OBL, the strengthening of al Qaeda, and our failure to conclude the war in Afghanistan, which has led to the resurgence of the Taliban. It probably also contributed to instability in Pakistan, given the complexities associated with OBL's probable presence there. Roughly these consequences (except for the last, more speculative one) were fairly easily foreseeable when Clinton wrote the op-ed in question, so it seems to me to be somewhat either shortsighted or irresponsible to write an editorial of this kind without including any mention of such consequences.
But regardless of the wisdom of the policy in question, the real point here is that we seem to have evidence that Clinton did not, as he has claimed, oppose the invasion from the beginning.
Daniel Finkelstein says no, and he seems to be right. As Finkelstein notes, Clinton may have failed to support the invasion from the beginning...and, we might add, he may have opposed it from fairly early on. But it seems that he didn't oppose it from the beginning.
I guess I don't have to keep repeating that I think that the reasons for deposing Saddam were fairly strong, and that my opposition to the invasion was based on two things: (a) the conviction that retribution for 9/11 and elimination of OBL and al Qaeda should take precedence over the entirely unrelated, non-pressing, long-term goal of dealing with Saddam, and (b) an inchoate and rather difficult-to-defend conviction that the obvious and overwhelming dishonesty of the administration's case for invasion should somehow count against that policy, even in the face of certain independent reasons in favor of it.
As I've said before, I think that those who actually favored invasion on moral and 1441-related grounds had an at least marginally defensible position. (It seems fairly clear that those weren't the administration's reasons...though no one has ever been able to figure out what their reasons actually were... But that's not what I'm interested in here.) At least in this piece, Clinton's reasons seem quasi-defensible to me. The obvious response to that claim, however, is to appeal at least to the (a)-type reasons I cite above: it was virtually the stupidest of all possible times to undertake a mission against Saddam (who was, after all, and in addition to whatever else he may have been, an enemy, not an ally, of OBL's). In retrospect it's clear that it was a mistake that contributed to the escape of OBL, the strengthening of al Qaeda, and our failure to conclude the war in Afghanistan, which has led to the resurgence of the Taliban. It probably also contributed to instability in Pakistan, given the complexities associated with OBL's probable presence there. Roughly these consequences (except for the last, more speculative one) were fairly easily foreseeable when Clinton wrote the op-ed in question, so it seems to me to be somewhat either shortsighted or irresponsible to write an editorial of this kind without including any mention of such consequences.
But regardless of the wisdom of the policy in question, the real point here is that we seem to have evidence that Clinton did not, as he has claimed, oppose the invasion from the beginning.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:06 AM
18 Comments:
My imperfect memory is that Bill C. said nothing that might have helped our nation avoid invading Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if he opposed the invasion in private, but that's just not enough.
Oh, and by the way, thank you, WS, for the link to my home.
If Clinton opposed the invasion, he did the right thing by shutting up. As opposed to the execrable ex-President Carter, who tried to round up international opposition to the First Gulf War (a "good" one, by most accounts) and who actively undermined Clinton's own foreign policy on several occasions as well.
I think Clinton, as is his disposition and custom, would have continued to kick the Saddam problem down the road, as he did for his entire presidency. I believe him when he says he would have given Hans Blix' inspections a chance to "work," as if they actually could have been expected to.
As for "I don't know the Bush Administration's reasons," but going on to condemn them anyway, this does not strike me as solid enough ground to voice opinion.
The argument from prudence has obvious currency, altho the mantra of how Iraq affected the hunt for bin Laden and the fight against al-Qaeda is not clear fact, altho it's often presented as such.
I think the Obama campaign made a mistake by not featuring his well-reasoned opposition at the time, noting "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." Iraq could certainly fit that description.
However, since the facts on the ground seem brighter now, and prudence dictates a good outcome should still be pursued when there is a chance of it, his words aren't so helpful at this time.
And neither was Obama's threat of a military incursion into Pakistan with or without its government's permission a comforting barometer of what would be considered smart or dumb in an Obama administration.
WS, why do you consider believing that:
"[T]he obvious and overwhelming dishonesty of the administration's case for invasion should somehow count against that policy, even in the face of certain independent reasons in favor of it,"
is "an inchoate and rather difficult-to-defend conviction"?
It is wrong to lie to one group of people to incite them to go off and do violence against another group of people. Any agent that puts forward an "obvious and overwhelming dishonest ... case for invasion" has demonstrated their utter disregard for right and wrong. Such an agent is not, under any circumstances, to be trusted on a matter as important as starting a war.
Or, in a more pragmatic approach, while you may have independent reasons to believe that starting a war is justified, you can be certain that the dishonest actors will consider themselves independent of your reasons -- and unconstrained by them!
My pleasure, LL. Sorry I never got around to it sooner...I'm really lazy about the blogroll...
jim b,
Well, the orthodox view is that, if there are good reasons for doing x, then it doesn't matter that someone else produces BAD reasons for doing x. They don't affect the good reasons. So--and this is how I thought for months--the rational thing to do (on the orthodox view) was simply to ignore all the bad and distorted reasons the administration was offering. That is: weigh up the good reasons pro and con without regard to all the obvious bullshit about links to al Qaeda, unmanned aerial vehicles, mushroom clouds, etc.
I disagree that someone who lies demonstrates "utter disregard for right and wrong." Someone might lie though he genuinely hates tyranny--and, in fact, lie because he thinks it will help to defeat tyranny.
Given that, I think the case was ultimately complicated in certain ways. In the end, I made a kind of complicated (and possibly unsound) judgment that the cost to American democracy of going along with such a dishonest case for war was too great. But also that, though one MIGHT lie out of a genuine hatred of tyranny, that's not exactly what was going on. Part of my (fallible) judgment had to do with the way that the administration and its supporters were conducting their propaganda/disinformation/defamation campaign against those who opposed them. A good administration motivated to lie out of a desire to defeat tyranny probably wouldn't characterize its opponents as unpatriotic, pro-terrorist, or insane. So, in the end, I judged that the motives of the admin--whatever they were--probably weren't laudable.
And then a bunch of other stuff. I'm still not completely convinced by this set of reasons, but I tentatively stick by them.
the way that the administration and its supporters were conducting their propaganda/disinformation/defamation campaign against those who opposed them.
Did this happen, or is it now just part of the prevailing myth? I don't recall the very principled Russ Feingold getting the least amount of guff for his opposition.
the orthodox view is that, if there are good reasons for doing x, then it doesn't matter that someone else produces BAD reasons for doing x.
This would be admirably clear thinking. There is also the fact that there were many reasons, particularly about the "crusader" troop presence Saudi Arabia, the murderousness of the previous Clinton sanctions, and the growing perfidious French move to round up international opposition, that could not be a part of the public rhetoric, yet nonetheless were quite real reasons to fix Saddam once and for all.
And of course, his butchery, which if emphasized, would have been seen merely as fanning the flames of demonization, altho demon he was.
WS,
Let me note that I never claimed that 'someone who lies demonstrates "utter disregard for right and wrong."'
What I asserted was that: 'Any agent that puts forward an "obvious and overwhelming dishonest ... case for invasion" has demonstrated their utter disregard for right and wrong.'
It is right to use deception to lure someone to their surprise party. However, invasions -- with their concomitant injury, death, and destruction -- cannot be justified by deception.
In deciding to start a war by invading another nation, either there is sufficient cause to believe that there is a clear and present danger that requires invasion now or there is not.
If the cause is sufficient, the administration can lay out why it finds sufficient cause and invade. If the cause is insufficient, using deception to create unwarranted fears of a non-existent threat is wrong. Using those fears to incite support of an invasion of a sovereign nation compounds the wrong.
You invoke the notion of lying to defeat tyranny. This is absolutely valid for those living under a tyrant. They must lie to protect themselves, and if they seek to overthrow the tyrant then more lies are needed.
Notice, though, that when tyrants want to start wars, they lie to their people to sow the fears needed gain support for an unjust war. Free nations allow open discussion of the facts, in the belief that if the reasons for starting a war cannot win on their merits, the war is unjust and should not be started.
For a free government to set forth an "obvious and overwhelming dishonest ... case for invasion" is simply not justified under any circumstance, and certainly not under the circumstances of 2002/3.
WS posts:
Well, the orthodox view is that, if there are good reasons for doing x, then it doesn't matter that someone else produces BAD reasons for doing x.
When party producing the BAD reasons for doing "x" is:
1) "obvious[ly] and overwhelming[ly] dishonest," and
2) The party that will actually be doing "x"
Then there is a very real chance that rather than doing "x" they will do "y". (They obviously lied about their reasons, why should you believe they will actually do what they say?)
Or, as I posted before:
"[W]hile you may have independent reasons to believe that starting a war is justified, you can be certain that the dishonest actors will consider themselves independent of your reasons -- and unconstrained by them!"
Sorry for the misreading, jim. Your response is admirably clear, as usual.
I think it's reasonable to say, in principle, anyway, something like this:
I know what the genuinely good reasons for x are. A is spewing bad reasons for x. But that doesn't make the good reasons any less good--I should just ignore A's spewing of bad reasons.
You note three important points:
1. Things may change if the case is VERY dishonest ("obviously and overwhelmingly...")
2. Things may change if the liars will be the agents that actually do x.
3. In free countries we do these things by honest and open discussion.
I respond:
3'. We are SUPPOSED to, but I'm asking how citizens should reason when we don't. So the discussion turns on 1 and 2.
2'.I thought--and had some explicit discussions about this with my most clear-headed colleague--that even Bush & co. couldn't/wouldn't botch the war if they started it. I had no idea that they'd e.g. completely ignore the output of the Future of Iraq Project etc.
But, of course, the question is "what should I have thought?" I dunno...is it reasonable to think that someone so hell-bent on doing x is likely to do it right?
More thought needed.
1'. Is the thought that anybody who is willing to lie THAT MUCH about whether we should do x is...what? Also willing to lie about what they're really going to do?
That seems plausible...
More thought needed.
I still think, as I said earlier when this discussion came up, that in a country based on law and precedent, to allow someone to behave irrationally EVEN IF that person is doing something which is, in and of itself, a good thing to do, is foolish.
It sets a precedent that can then be followed later. If we use really weak intelligence to pursue a war based off of ridiculous fear and preposterous reasoning, it'll only give the future America a reason to do the same if it works out for us now.
That's why the good thing to do would have to outweigh the bad implications of the faulty reasoning for me to get behind it. I think that rarely happens and it certainly couldn't have happened with the Iraq war.
WS,
I would say that anyone who would lie that much about why we should commit violence upon others can be presumed to have:
a) unknown motives,
b) unknown goals, and
c) no scruples.
Anyone who would lie that much about why we should commit violence upon others is certainly capable of lying about what they intend to do.
I would also say (echoing the mystic) that anyone who would lie to such a degree about starting a war should be considered as presumptively untrustworthy by everyone, to strongly discourage such behavior in the future.
[Saddam's] butchery, which if emphasized, ... (emphasis added)
I got a good laugh from this small rewriting of history worthy of a Rovian Ministry of Truthiness.
I'm beginning to think that memory is an act of subversion. Rape rooms, mass graves, Halabja - while I'm encouraged to remember them, they are not on the approved list of Bushist talking points that I'm allowed to recall as one of their contexts. Too bad about my anti-authoritarian streak (and, no, of course, I don't mean 'anti-authority').
My reply. See in particular Bernard Kouchner's disgust at the knee-jerk anti-war left, who cared nothing about Saddam's butchery. [Kouchner is a well-credentialed gentleman of the left himself.]
Couldn't get far without busting out laughing at this gem from TVD's "reply", "I've always blamed France for the Iraq war, and of course that was right." I'd call what follows argument by guess, no matter how ardently believed.
In the quaint real world, of course, Duhbya and the PNAC neocons wanted to invade Iraq for its geography. Iraq's tyrant's murderous predilections were just something they could use in their marketing campaign to appease those in the center and on the left who might have otherwise been anti-war. If Saddam's butchery had mattered to the right, the neocons would have had plenty of other good targets, and Duhbya would not have run on the premeditated lie of a "modest" foreign policy.
TVD may claim he wants evidence for this. Three items: Richard Clarke's quote of Rummy to Duhbya on 9/12, the explicitly stated PNAC program to invade Iraq for openly imperial reasons in order to project American power in the region, and Bob Woodward's reporting on the overwhelming desire to go into Iraq. Others have confirmed this desire.
So, pretty much, just TVD's pony plan, buttressed by imaginings "proven" by his desire that they be true.
What's funny is that I ridiculed TVD's counterfactual. Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense that a neocon Bushist's counterfactuals are just as likely to be untrue as his factuals.
Yes, but ridicule is not rebuttal, in fact it shows you have none. Since you didn't rebut anything in my reply, I see giving you a second chance was once again a waste of time. You're still the same crank who writes conservatives will resort to street violence if they don't get their own way.
My fault. Fool me twice.
Well, TVD, at least you're reading. My experience with you, not contradicted here, is that ridicule is the only message that gets through. So, my good!
And, of course, as others will judge, I did also rebut, but that bounced off your bubble. I know better than to bother elucidating the rebuttals; you'll just deny again that they exist. Hence my well-learned preference for jibes.
There's lots more rebuttal. With you, it's just not worth the bother.
As for right-wing violence, I'm sure you'll find a way to excuse it whenever and wherever it appears. You're pro-torture. How big a leap is it really to allow a certain amount of skull-cracking "for the good of the country"? Meaning of course, my skull, your country.
Actually, I wrote I'd stand beside you and protect you from the right-wing meanies of your fevered imagination. I'm that kinda guy.
And no, you rebutted nothing, you didn't even address it. I wasted my time.
Yeah, sure, TVD, the fact that you, another highly credible Bushist, wrote it should give me great confidence that it's true. As if.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home