Packer, in earlier conversations and interviews, showed himself to be shocked and chagrined at how myopic he had been in his support of the war in the beginning.  And defensive.  Above all defensive.  One has to take that into account when reading his stuff now (always interesting, too often annoying).  He returns to the fact that he was wrong each time he writes about Iraq, like the tongue to a sore tooth. 

Don't think I disagree with you, DG -- we define the "necessity" of war in exactly the same way.  I just find myself wanting to cut Packer a little slack even though he took what I considered to be an ill-informed and immoral stance -- because of what he adds to the discussion in general!

Kerry's plan -- he was just talking about it with Al Franken -- to put together a council to negotiate an end to hostilities, makes good sense... hard to do and might take longer than most are willing to put up with.  But it's the best bet so far. 

Both sides have got to get over the desire for a quick solution, a quick out.  Ain't gonna happen.  And sometimes sounds a little like spoiled children, having made a huge mess, crying out that someone should come and clean it up quickly so they can get back to doing something more fun. 

When William F. Buckley, Jr. says it is a failure, and that failure has to have a stopwatch, there is a potent pundit admission from the rightward watch.

Ideology fails more often than not.  It may be reality based at some discrete point in time, however, it is not adaptive to reality and the facts on the ground.  No ideology should govern.  Men must govern, guided and often bound by laws and the spirit of the laws, and those laws and their enforcement should be informed by a mixture of findings, principles, morals, and vision for effectiveness.

Some of the principles involved may be sage and also be used within an ideology.  But an ideology seems to me to be more of a snapshot in time from which long term action is not wise -- beating a dead horse as it were -- but of which a fair weighing is warranted for a time . . . with a stopwatch to tell us when to reassess and respond with adaptability where needed, and to carry on where warranted.

Thank you for this comment Mr. Goldberg.  The Packer line you describe is fast becoming the default position of the tribe of muscular Wilsonians, who are now in bitter, frustrated retreat, and are searching for scapegoats for their own foolishness.  It's all that moron Bush's fault, you see.  He "hijacked" the democracy-promotion agenda, and then wrecked it on the rocks of his incompetence.  If only Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke had been in charge!  How wonderfully it would have all turned out!   More troops; more money; no looting; no insurgency - voila!

 
With their constant emplyment of adjectives such as "muscular", "tough", "hard", etc., I'd say a lot of these these folks are tormented by self-doubt about their own strength and forcefulness.  (In the old days, the same sort of group liked to use words like "virile" and "manly".)  To compensate,  they jacked themselves on intellectual and rhetorical steroids for a few years, endangering their own health and the health of the country.  Now that it has been shown that they were on the juice, they really need to be suspended from the playing field, and sent into rehab.  But they're a bit short-tempered right now, so it will be hard to get them to calm down first.

Like so much of liberal commentary on the Iraq War, this post is filled with a lot of flailing about and protest, but very little in the way of persuasive argument.  At least when it comes to persuading people who are not already persuaded.

There is a good case to be made that Iraq was so damaged as a society that the goals we set out to achieve in toppling Saddam were never going to be realized.  In other words, the hope of building Iraq into a beacon of democracy was doomed from the start and it was foolish to attempt it.  If you believe that, then yes, the war was flawed in its conception, not its execution.  Similarly, if you believe that Saddam had been adequately contained by weapons inspectors and no longer posed a threat to anyone (except his own people, of course) then you can also argue that the war was unnecessary and misguided in its conception.

But if, like many, you believe that the difficulties in reconstructing Iraq were actually known and understood but ignored, then it is hard to escape the idea that it is really execution that is at issue.  Specifically the inflexibility, blindness and arrogance that characterized the civilian leadership in the Pentagon as well as George W. Bush.  In addition, as many have noted, there was a clear consensus of experts at the time that Saddam did have WMD stockpiles hidden from inspectors and did have a history of using them.  Only in hindsight do we know he was bluffing.

But Goldberg is attempting to make a larger point that liberals should only support wars that are a last resort and that are blessed by the UN.  Exactly how this differs from what most liberals are already saying is unclear.  Also unclear is how any of this is necessarily undermined by saying the Iraq War was executed incompetently.

But most importantly, from the standpoint of those of us who are not already persuaded about this, it is unclear WHY Goldberg thinks this ought to be the liberal approach to international security policy.  He simply throws out tired cliches about "Empire" without defining what it means or why it is bad.  Is it a moral case?  Is it a pragmatic case?  He doesn't say.  He also deal with the obvious problem with making a fetish out of UN approval.  Giving other countries veto power over our security decision making is simply unthinkable.  Most importantly, how does he get around the simple fact that this HAS been the approach of Democratic candidates in general and has been found wanting in terms of electoral appeal?

The one thing I definitely agree with is that if we are going to succeed in Iraq, we need a new team of decision makers.  Nothing screams incompetence louder than the continued presence of Donald Rumsfeld as SecDef.

But if, like many, you believe that the difficulties in reconstructing Iraq were actually known and understood but ignored, then it is hard to escape the idea that it is really execution that is at issue.

This doesn't follow Brad.  Simply knowing and understanding certain difficulties in advance does not suffice to turn a fundamental problem of conception into a problem of execution.

Suppose the civic leaders in my cold and landlocked New Hampshire town conceive and launch the scheme of turning our hamlet into a world surfing mecca, an effort that subsequently fails miserably.  Now suppose some of those who hatched and supported the scheme come to the rest of us and say, "It is all the first selectman's fault - before we voted for this scheme, we commissioned a report that alerted us about the near impossibility of turning New Hampshire towns into beach blanket surfers' paradises.  Yet the first selectman ignored the report!"

This doesn't get the other supporters off the hook.  The added incompetence in execution was merely a an added check on what was an idiotic and misconceived project at the start. 

In addition, as many have noted, there was a clear consensus of experts at the time that Saddam did have WMD stockpiles hidden from inspectors and did have a history of using them.

Experts? Like Stephen Hayes? Or maybe someone over at Powerline?

Dick Cheney's office, perhaps? 

This is such a tired line.... 

Dissent Protects Democracy

I think that those who still think that the war in Iraq was a good idea don't understand what democracy (that is today's rationale for the war, isn't it?) means. It means a nation is more likely to express/reflect the attitudes of the people. What could possibly be a good outcome in Iraq with regards to the war on terror? Clearly, after Saddam, Iraq will have moved toward a foreign policy more closely aligned with Iran. Iraq will be less secular than under Saddam. Which of these outcomes was appealing to Packer?

If you think the US needed a more religious Iraq, more closely aligned with Iran, just as the phony war on terror began, then you think the Iraq war was good. 

I cut George Packer no slack. He was for an immoral war that has hurt US national security and the world. He doesn't need 16 pages. He needs to apologize and explain how he was conned by the neocons. Perhaps he should turn to writing fiction. This would suit his skills: he can write but he has no analytical abilities.

Brad, I don't think there was a "clear consensus from experts" about the WMDs.  Blick's crew and the previous UN team were convinced that the job was done, but they didn't have that "certainty" element tied down.  Hussein's bluff was only to leave that hanging.

I've just read a thoughtful piece in al Ahram by Adel-Wahab El-Messiri which addresses some language issues, particularly the strange way that a term can lose it's specific meaning by becoming value-free. 

Every term, however clear or simple, involves a concept reflecting a world view. This is why it is not feasible to divorce terms from their historic contexts. This axiom applies to the term "clash of civilisations". The very term itself reflects a concept that is central to Western modernity. Here we must note that this Western modernity implies the application of reason, science and technology, but it does so, while divorcing them from any values. It is an application, therefore, that is "value- free", as the expression goes.

 

The question arises then: in the absence of constant, general human values what becomes the final arbiter of the conflict and strife that are an essential part of the human condition? Without such values the individual or ethnic group becomes the ultimate frame of reference that determines right and wrong. What the individual or group perceives as being in their interest becomes "the good" and what is against their interest becomes "the evil". The resolution of conflicts, in such a context, is propelled by force and individual will.

If the Democratic Party adopts any official language on the war in Iraq, that language will reflect a "position."  I'm concerned with what that position would be.  Are we speaking from the platform of American self-interest, or from a broader platform, such as "humanism" or any other position that includes the interests of those who are affected by the reach and influence of the USA.  I think this question needs to be answered.  It may be that the majority would choose "self-interest" over "humanism," and if that is the case we shouldn't be surprised if the Other resists our program. 

Let me quote El-Messiri again -

Western (Darwinian) modernity expostulated the idea of infinite progress as being humanity's ultimate aim. But from the actual implementation we now know that the driving force for such progress has been the subjugation of the globe itself in the interest of the West and its inhabitants. The most important indicator of this progress has now become an ever-increasing consumerism. This has led to a situation where the Western populations which constitute 20 per cent of the world's inhabitants currently consume 80 per cent of the globe's resources. What the American people alone consumed in the past century exceeds all that mankind has consumed by the course of its history. An ecological crisis now threatens us all. One study has mentioned that if the pattern of Western consumerism were to prevail, humankind would need five earths from which to extract raw materials and two into which to dump the waste. This means that the modernist Darwinian project is one that cannot really benefit any entity other than the West itself, and some third world ruling elites.

Sure, it's a tired, worn-out idea - we've heard it so often for so long.  The question is, does it deserve repeating.  I think it does, and as we discuss Iraq - especially an emerging Democrat platform on Iraq - I would like to see the ideas reestablish a value base, rather than just pumping up the same old rhetoric we've heard forever. 

Neoboho

Completely agree.  One of the things I really like about TPMCafe is that -- unlike a lot of other group blogs -- there is a real diversity of opinions here, which makes for interesting discussions, not simply an echo chamber of people saying 'right on! tell 'em!".  Rating someone down simply because you disagree is inappropriate.

If you think that a compelling case can be made that Iraq was too damaged to be resurrected, then why don't you accept this case? Just because DG didn't happen to mention that? Or is it not compelling to you? Do tell.

Finally, I think it is incumbent on you to present an argument on how this war could have been executed so "rightly" as to make the goals you alluded to achievable. I hope you're not going to say "well, we had to try, even if the likelihood of success wasn't very great."

There are so many mistakes to talk about that it would be impossible to list them all. But clearly the one everyone talks about is the troop levels. By failing to establish order and authority early on, the US let the insurgency spring up and metastasize. In short, the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force was the right one. Secondly, there should have been an Iraqi interim government installed immediately, instead of after a year.  Third, we should have announced no intention to establish permanent bases.  Perhaps you can say the last one was hindsight.  But the first two were urged at the time but were rejected.

But much more important than the various military blunders was the systematic dishonesty with which the war was sold to the American people.  I think that the Bush Asministration expected that their untruths would be found out, but the overwhelming victory would make it all irrelevant.  Democrats would be put in the position of bleating on about lies, but the Bushies would be basking in the glow of a great victory.  That is what essentially happened in 2004, as Democratic charges of lying fell on deaf ears.  As a matter of politics, the GOP did the logical thing.  As a matter of American credibility, it was an utter disaster.

As for trying, it's a far cry to say that there is any danger of allowing the UN to veto our national security decisions when we hardly even deign to ask it anymore -- that's the arena where I think we should be trying much harder than we are. But I'm not sure whether our failure to engage the UN in the decision to go to war in Iraq was an error of execution or conception -- seems likely, in hindsight anyway, that it was both.

The UN did agree (resolution 678) to authorize force in the first Gulf War.  I'm not saying I agreed with that war either, but I am saying that it is possible to build an international consensus on a decision to go to war, and therefore it is worth the effort.  Maybe you are saying that to even ask the UN is to relinquish virtual sovereignty?

I don't agree that the UN has any sort of veto power when it comes to going to war, unless you're referring to the UN charter's prohibition on agression, which all member nations ratified (even the US thought it was a good idea at the time! (/sarcasm)) and which certainly contains enough loopholes to drive an aircraft carrier through.

There are so many mistakes to talk about that it would be impossible to list them all. But clearly the one everyone talks about is the troop levels. By failing to establish order and authority early on, the US let the insurgency spring up and metastasize. In short, the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force was the right one.

Ok fine, this is the main argument of the "pro war but Bush screwed up camp" that will likely be what McCain and others will trot out and campaign on, it is becoming something of the conventional wisdom amongst the clueless establishment press in DC.  But one simple question where were those troops going to come from?  If your case for a sucessfull war requires more troops and we didn't have more troops then by defnition your war plan was not possible. 

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, it was one of the only examples that we've seen in recent decades of the kind of conflict the UN was designed to prevent.  That is, when one state invades another for purposes of conquest.  That was what the victorious powers had fought in WWII and that is what they were concerned about.  So when you had a fascist dictator straight out of the 1930s like Saddam Hussein, it was relatively easy to get a consensus.  Who is willing to stand up and defend naked conquest?  But even then, it took a Herculean effort on the part of George Bush senior - who took diplomacy seriously, unlike his nimrod son - and the vote in Congress was pretty close.  In other words, it took American leadership to stand ground against this aggression and the rest of the world basically acquiesced.

I think it's fair to say that such a confluence of circumstances is pretty rare.  Most of the world's conflicts or potential conflicts don't fit that state-invades-state model.  Thus it is exceedingly unlikely that the UN will bless another war anytime soon.  So where does that leave those of us who believe that in an age of global terrorism, military force must remain an option for policymakers?  Well it leaves us arguing that we cannot let the UN veto our security decisions.  This is especially true when it comes to pre-emptive war.  We must have the ability to prevent the world's worst dictators acquire the world's worst weapons.

Giving other countries veto power over our security decision making is simply unthinkable. 

Is this another way of saying - "every country should have the right to decide who to attack"; or do you mean "the US alone has the right to decide who to attack"?

Finally, if the US signs a convention saying in effect that it's giving other countries veto rights over its security decision making wouldn't you say that that strongly suggests that it has actually moved past the thinking stage?

Why would he have put together a plan like that if he didn't have the troops available?

To show his bosses what was required to do the job they were asking him to do

Is this another way of saying - "every country should have the right to decide who to attack"; or do you mean "the US alone has the right to decide who to attack"?

Franks is a McClelland without the manners.