catapult magazine

Anybody remember those heated debates we had here before, during, and after the American invasion of Iraq? An article I read today reminded me about the argument we had about WMD, the UN, weapons inspections, and preemtive war.

http://www.slate.com/id/2137953/?nav=tap3

So I’m wondering if people still generally have the same ideas about this thing as then, or has anybody changed their mind.

Here’s one of the treads from those bad-ol days:
http://www.cultureisnotoptional.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=315&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Just in case anyone is wondering (and in the remote possibility that more than 2 people are following this discussion), I think all of this is still relevant to the original topic because it concerns how the meaning of the invasion and occupation has changed over the last few years and what it will mean in the future.

Concerning Lebanon, why don’t you narrate your version of events there and we’ll see what people think (I do hope others will respond too).

related to this thread: Check out slate’s series of essays by "liberal" former supporters of the war who explain why they were wrong (or in the case of christopher hitchens, why he was right). http://www.slate.com/id/2186757/

My answer would be in agreement with the one that says I didn’t realize how inept the Bush administration would be. When the war started, Bob Dylan was asked what he thought about it and he quoted an ancient Chinese proverb: know your enemy. Ever the prophet, Dylan was right. Turns out, the Bush administration didn’t know their enemy. When you go to war, you should make sure you really know who you’re fighting. Such knowledge also promotes self-knowledge and often even prevents the war from occurring altogether.

Unfortunately the Bush administration’s one-night stand developed into a longer relationship than originally intended. The aftermath kind of reminds me of the movie "Knocked Up", except the Iraq reality isn’t funny. Only in the last few years, the administration and army are finally figuring out who they really jumped into bed with.

I still agree with some of the arguments for going to war…but those arguments were based on the assumption Hussein really was the kind of military threat he appeared to be. Apparently he wasn’t—though I don’t think we should dismiss the evils of his regime. Looking back, knowing what kind of person Hussein really was, it makes sense that he would fake his threatfulness—this is the guy that would shoot a phallic-looking rifle with one hand from the hip at military parades. What a big tease!

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a very good response to all of the essays at Slate. He points out that none of these people who advocated this war and now admit they were wrong actually recognize the astronomically high cost of human life their advocacy contributed to—hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens were killed and over a million have been displaced.

I agree with that. Saying that the biggest problem was incompetence suggests that the invasion was justified. The Bush administration was not only inept in its handling of the occupation; first and foremost it acted deceitfully and maliciously toward both the Iraqi and the American people (resulting in millions of broken lives). The biggest problem for me is not incompetence, but reckless and cynical malevolence. These people should be held accountable. Instead, they are getting a buttload of money and respectable retirements to make up for the emotional pain of being ridiculed for incompetence.

I get your point about the truest way to measure something as a failure, but if the administration had acted competently, wouldn’t there have been a reduction of "broken lives"? And there were already many deaths attributed to Saddam’s regime. Looking at the information now, it was not a good idea to invade Iraq. I think Bush still thinks it was because he believes it made the Middle East the stage for battle against America. It kept our "enemy" from fighting us on our homeland, so to speak. I’m not saying I agree with this logic, but I think that’s a big part of Bush’s plan.

Yes, Bush’s personal inability to learn and change and grow is a very big part of the problem. He is the center of the incompetence. And his incompetence includes choosing to surround himself with men who make bad decisions, and I mean bad in both senses.