« Flattening the "U" | Main | More on Edwards »
February 02, 2007
Anti-War? Or Anti-This-War?
From Time's interview with the HRC (yeah you know me!):
TIME: But there does seem to be a strain of Democrats who just want you to say the three words: I was wrong.
CLINTON: Well, I've said over and over again, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. The President was the one who was wrong. The President led people to believe that he would be prudent in the exercise of the authority he was given. That proved not to be true.
Hillary's comments here should be taken at face value. She doesn't believe she was wrong. She believes the intelligence was. John Edwards' disappointingly belligerent comments on Iran suggested something similar: Just because a Democrat claims to have learned the lessons of Iraq, just because they now oppose this war, doesn't mean they've learned the same lessons the anti-war movement imagines they've learned. This war can be opposed on grounds so limited as to hold little bearing on a similar, subsequent conflict, say with a country that's a typo of "Iraq."
Put it another way: Hillary believes, or appears to believe, that if the weapons had existed and the management had proven more competent, this war would have been a good idea. John Edwards, who recently assured an Israeli conference that "under no circumstances" can Iran go nuclear and "all options are on the table" to stop them, seems to believe the same. During a recent interview, I asked him about the lessons of Iraq. "You shouldn’t assume," he said, "because there’s a consensus about something that it’s accurate. We need to be very skeptical about information that’s not direct about what’s happening." That's a good lesson about intelligence. It isn't necessarily a lesson about the wisdom -- or lack thereof-- of invading other countries.
The lesson I've taken, by contrast, is that toppling Middle Eastern governments, occupying their societies, and trying to impose pluralistic democracy is an almost impossible endeavor, one with far more potential for catastrophe than completion. And it's easy to assume, listening to politicians who have turned against the war, that they've gleaned the same. That isn't necessarily true. Just because they oppose the Iraq War in retrospect, doesn't mean they oppose the theory on which it was based. They may have turned against the lies, or the mismanagement, or its unpopularity. But they may not have substantially raised the bar for the use of force. Given Edwards' recent comments on Iran, he seems comfortable hinting at another war with a more powerful Middle Eastern country over the issue of WMDs. Hillary certainly is. Being anti-war, it seems, is rather different than being anti-this-war.
Update: I should say, for clarity, that I don't think Democrats should be simply "anti-war." I do think they should be very skeptical about the odds of successfully invading and reconstructing Middle Eastern nations, and should be very wary about doing so, particularly on any sort of "pre-emptive" or "preventive" basis..
Crossed to Tapped
February 2, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Well put, but sadly unsurprising. Hardly any Democratic party "leaders" really led in their opposition to the Iraq war. The public was always ahead of them. The only Democrat I can think of who led Iraq opposition vocally back when it was unpopular to do so was Al Gore, which is one major reason why he'd instantly have my support if he got into the race.
This is also why I'm very suspicious of both Clinton and Edwards. As you say, they don't appear to have learned the right lessons from Iraq, and it's very, very easy to oppose the Iraq war now.
One of the lessons they don't seem to have learned is that you don't take a proven liar at face value the next time. Why on earth should we take Iran seriously as a threat when the people telling us to do so mortgaged their credibility long ago? For me, their failure to learn that lesson pulls into question their ability to take advice only from credible people on a whole range of issues.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Feb 2, 2007 10:52:23 AM
Put it another way: Hillary believes, or appears to believe, that if the weapons had existed and the management had proven more competent, this war would have been a good idea.
Of course it would have been a good idea. That's why all those Democrats voted for it.
They may have turned against the lies, or the mismanagement, or its unpopularity. But they may not have substantially raised the bar for the use of force.
How high do you want the bar to go? Where is that perfect threshhold? Iran has already made inflammatory statements about its neighbor's right to exist while at the same time persuing the capability to produce nukular technology capable of producing weapons. Iran is pretty much involoved in support of insurgents that fight Americans in Iraq, and they are a known and designated terrorist state, for Pete's sake.
Where do you see the bar?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 2, 2007 10:52:24 AM
And being anti-preventive-war is different from being anti-war.
Posted by: mrgumby2u | Feb 2, 2007 11:05:42 AM
Iran is pretty much involoved in support of insurgents that fight Americans in Iraq, and they are a known and designated terrorist state, for Pete's sake.
Heh. Speaking of believing people who mortgaged their credibility long ago, here comes Fred on cue to discuss Iran's support of insurgents in Iran. Also on cue, the NIE is released today, and as summarized by TPM: "Iraq's neighbors are 'not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics.'"
Posted by: Antid Oto | Feb 2, 2007 11:09:04 AM
"Where do you see the bar?"
Higher. Iran would need to be months away from having a nuclear weapon (they're not) and need to be actively promoting terrorism against US soldier in Iraq (no evidence so far) and would need to have refused to negotiate on both counts (in fact, it's Cheney who's refused Iranian openings twice now.)
As for lessons learned, I'd say a big one is "George W. Bush lies about WMD programs in other countries. He cannot be trusted."
Posted by: John | Feb 2, 2007 11:09:51 AM
If the Dems support Bush in attacking Iran, it will lead to a crisis of legitimacy of the state in America. There is no popular support for a war with Iran, and an opposition party was just elected as a protest against further war in the Middle East. If that opposition party turns around and supports waging another war, it will prove to the American people that democracy no longer functions in this counrty.
War with Iran is an issue in which powerful elites in both parties favor one policy while the overwhelming majority of the population favors another. For the elites to prevail would demonstrate to the American people that their opinions just don't matter when it comes to the big issues. The civic religion of American exceptionalism that holds this diverse country together will whither and die.
Posted by: Jay | Feb 2, 2007 11:10:51 AM
Ezra, I understand that you feel the need to counter the pro-Edwards posts of your weekend bloggers with your own posts critical of Edwards, but this is one of the worst things I've ever seen here.
If you want to condemn Edwards for his tough talk on Iran, go ahead--I didn't like it, either--but to say that it means he's lying when he says he was wrong to vote for the IWR is both dishonest, unfair, and really fucking stupid.
Edwards says he was wrong to vote for the IWR in the simplest strongest terms possible, going out of his way not to blame Bush (unlike Hillary). He rejects Hillary's "if we'd known then" formulation, and the clear inference it that he thinks it would've been wrong to go to war even if Saddam had had WMD. This is clearly different from Hillary's position and puts the lie to your slur that Edwards believes that "if the weapons had existed and the management had proven more competent, this war would have been a good idea." There's nothing in Edwards's speeches or statements to suggest he believes this. All you have for support is
few hawkish lines on Iran about "leaving everything on the table." That's lamentable conventional bluster that every serious contender for president will employ. Tell me, which candidate is going to take announce that he or she is taking options off the table?
Maybe most important, Edwards has called for serious diplomacy with Iran, diplomacy first, which is vastly different from Bush's position.
Don't get me wrong: I wish Edwards were taking the lead in opposing the push for war with Iran, which is real and dangerous. But you can't use a few lines of rhetoric to make judgments about his philosophy.
Well, you can't if you want to be fair.
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 11:12:19 AM
Fred's mortgage on credibility was so far in arrears that it was foreclosed, and the property auctioned long ago. He's living in his car, but that will go soon to be replaced by the 'borrowed' supermarket basket/carrier.
Ezra: Being anti-war, it seems, is rather different than being anti-this-war.
mrgumby2u: And being anti-preventive-war is different from being anti-war.
And being anti-war in Islamic countries that we fail to understand and can't communicate with is different than being totally anti-war.
Let's assume that Iran has the ability to make a few nuclear weapons in 3-6 years. Why does that make them more dangerous (and require war) than the Soviet Union was when they had thousands of nuclear weapons, a huge army, a strong nuclear sub fleet, and some of the best military airplanes in the world?
Containment and Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine worked against the Soviet Union, and China, both far, far more dangerous than Iran - unless you believe the ayatollahs are ready to have Iran a land of nuclear-flattened ruble (which is just baseless to assume)!
And even if you believe the worst about Iran, why must the US under BushCo have the moral and political authority to even hint at war with Iran after the debacle they have made of Iraq? Why now, when we are lead by serial liars/exagerators/and incompetants?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 2, 2007 11:27:56 AM
The sad fact is that all signs point to bad times are ahead. We're headed for conflict with Iran, and everyone should be throwing everything they can in the way of the Administration's collision course. This isn't a time for nuance, this is a time for tough action.
Sitting in a cafe, I sometimes wonder if I'm like those people you see in pictures sitting around in a cafe in Paris in 1938. Life goes on normally but there is a very real possibility that we are on the cusp of a disasterous phase violence that will be unleashed through the actions of this Administration. Is it possible that we will look back on early '06 as a missed chance for all of us to dummy up and realize the stakes on fighting this Administration.
Posted by: Glockenspieler | Feb 2, 2007 11:30:39 AM
I never said he was lying. I said the grounds on which he was wrong are different than the grounds on which I think he was wrong. But do show me Edwards' statement where he contradicts what I say above, where he says the problem is the difficulty of invading other nations rather than the dishonest bill of goods and incompetent directors of this war.
Oh, and I've been honest enough to allow every possible bit of Edwards boosting on this site. If you think it's only dishonest when it's criticism, you may want to rethink your own ability to seriously evaluate the issues at hand. You may think I'm wrong, but don't question my integrity. Last night, Edwards was at the AIPAC meeting. A few days before, he said all options are on the table to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And I had a long talk with him last Friday about his views on Iraq and the use of force. Again, you may not like my conclusions, but you discredit yourself if you reject their plausibility.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 11:31:13 AM
One small step we could take is to beg our congresspeople to support these resolutions. I've written to both my Senators and my Representative about it. I don't have a lot of hope, though, but it's something.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Feb 2, 2007 11:33:37 AM
I don't think Ezra is being unfair to Edwards in the least. John Edwards has said that he was wrong to vote for the IRW because the intelligence on which his decision was based was faulty. He has not retracted his position, as far as I can tell, that invading Middle Eastern countries because they might be developing WMDs is good U.S. foreign policy. The error of that position is something that unfortunately seems to have been completely lost in the post 9/11 world. The Iraq War was wrong first and foremost because it flouted international law and norms by pretending that we were engaging in some kind of defensive preemptive strike against a certain attack by Iraq. It wasn't any such thing and nor would military action against Iran be under today's circumstances. The war was also wrong because it was based on bad intelligence and misrepresentations by the Bush administration. I'm glad Edwards plainly admitted he was wrong to rely on bad intelligence and that he now realizes the war turned out to be unwise, but going forward I think we should demand more from our leaders than limited assurances about how they would have acted differently if they hadn't acted so irresponsibly in this particular case.
Posted by: Joseph Hovsep | Feb 2, 2007 11:36:43 AM
Here's what you said Ezra, that Edwards "believes, or appears to believe, that if the weapons had existed and the management had proven more competent, this war would have been a good idea."
Do you stand by this?
That's a strong, highly question allegation, and please don't imagine that you let yourself off the hook by writing "appears to believe."
So, the question is, does Edwards think it would've been a mistake to go to war with Iraq EVEN IF Iraq had has WMD?
On one side we have Edwards repeated statements that even believing what he believed then, that Iraq had WMD, he was wrong to vote for the IWR. On the other side, we have some hawkish comments about a different country.
Now, if it's still not clear: You're a journalist who had a sit-down with him. Don't you think it was incumbent on you to ask him if "the war would have been a good idea if there had been WMD and the execution were better" before you start alleging that this is what he believes? Or, excuse me, "appears to believe."
You put strong, controversial, and, in the context of Democratic party politics, wrong-headed beliefs in his head.
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 11:40:46 AM
Here's Edwards' "I Was Wrong" op-ed:
"I was wrong.
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price."
It was a good op-ed. But it doesn't actually say that this war proved preventive wars with autocratic Middle Eastern countries -- even when they are actually preventing something real -- are essentially impossible endeavors with unpredictable consequences and giant downsides. Edwards is very honest about why he was wrong to vote for this war. He was wrong to not question the intelligence more, wrong to not fully comprehend the admkinistration's mendacity. But he has not said that this type of war, for this reason (when real), is wrong. And he certainly didn't suggest that it was when speaking to AIPAC or Hizliyah.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 11:41:41 AM
we have Edwards repeated statements that even believing what he believed then, that Iraq had WMD, he was wrong to vote for the IWR
Do you have a cite for this? Because I don't see anything like that in his Washington Post op-ed in which he admitted he was wrong
Posted by: Joseph Hovsep | Feb 2, 2007 11:44:00 AM
And being anti-preventive-war is different from being anti-war.
Quite so. Or to put it another way, being opposed to pre-emptive war, "nation building" and/or spreading "democracy" with guns and bombs is not at all the same as believing that the USA needs a military and that it must and will be used when necessary.
Edwards' comments are disturbing not because they paint him as a warmonger, but because armed conflict with Iran, given the state of both our military and our standing in the world, is an extremely bad idea.
Nor should we fault Hillary for placing responsibility for this mess at Bush's feet. Our reduced military capabilities are his fault. The fact that our resources are tied up in a failed situation is his fault. That 300 million Americans, let alone citizens of other countries, were lied to in order to manufacture support for war plans Bush had in place upon taking office is, again, Bush's fault.
It's astonishing how willing people are to place the blame for this on the CIA. It's like no one remembers that it was the CIA that warned against attacking Iraq, that disproved the yellowcake uranium story, that showed how Iraq and Al-Qaeda were not linked. And for that they were ignored, Valerie Plame's cover was blown - endangering real people around the globe - and a separate "intelligence" agency was created at the Pentagon for the purpose of generating "intelligence" that would support the conclusions that Bush had reached in January, 2001. Hillary has jumped way up in my opinion of her, just because she has finally, publicly, put the blame for this fiasco right where it belongs. Would that Edwards, Obama, hell, even you, Ezra, would do the same.
If you want to condemn Edwards for his tough talk on Iran, go ahead--I didn't like it, either--but to say that it means he's lying when he says he was wrong to vote for the IWR is both dishonest, unfair, and really fucking stupid.
What post did you read, mizner? Where has Edwards said that even if Iraq had nuclear and chemical weapons and Hussein had been paying off Al-Qaeda, we shouldn't have invaded? His statements that "ALL" the options are on the table in reference to Iran and that consensus doesn't reflect accuracy mean pretty much what Ezra says. That you don't like it doesn't mean this was a hit piece.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 2, 2007 11:45:28 AM
I shouldn't have said you said he was lying. Nor should I have said your post was dishonest. I'm sorry for that. I commented too quickly. But I don't think your post was fair. You imputs beliefs to him that he doesn't hold. Or that's there no proof he holds. Now you can fairly say that his comments on Iran suggest he learned the wrong lesson from Iraq. But you said more than that.
Here's what I object to, one more time, (with feeling), that Edwards "believes, or appears to believe, that if the weapons had existed and the management had proven more competent, this war would have been a good idea."
Does he really think this? I highly highly doubt it. Why don't you call his office and ask him?
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 11:48:47 AM
Here's what he told me when I asked him the lessons of Iraq:
"I do think it matters learning the lessons of Iraq. You shouldn’t assume because there’s a consensus about something that it’s accurate. We need to be very skeptical about information that’s not direct about what’s happening. We had that issue in Iraq, we have it in Iran and North Korea right now. The President of the United States needs to be challenging in a really serious way what’s happening, but I think at the end of the day regarding the use of force – I reject unequivocally the preemptive strike doctrine, totally unnecessary and provocative – we need a President at the end of the day who people trust will do what’s right."
Preemptive war doctrine, by the way, is different than preventative war doctrine. So here's his answer: He says we need to be more skeptical of intelligence. He doesn't say anything about a higher bar stemming from the demonstrated difficulties of invasion. So yes, I think "appears to believe" is precisely the right formulation. But I'm happy to see a citation from you saying the opposite, rather than just rejection because this interpretation negative towards JE.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 11:50:34 AM
If you want to condemn Edwards for his tough talk on Iran, go ahead--I didn't like it, either--but to say that it means he's lying when he says he was wrong to vote for the IWR is both dishonest, unfair, and really fucking stupid.
You just don't get it, David. If you believed the intelligence, which was domestic as well as from out allies, then you're a fuckin' liar. Unless you're Hillary, or John Kerry, or all of the other liberal politicians who all saw the same intelligence as the prez and came to the same conclusion.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 2, 2007 11:53:40 AM
By the way, it's worth pointing out that, at least at one point in time, John Edwards a cosponsor of the Iraq War resolution. He believed, given his credulity towards the intelligence, that that war was a sound plan. So this isn't an outlandish underlying position to believe he holds. I'm am 100% sure that he's furious for the deceptions and fundamentally against this war. But I don't know that he's taken the lessons that a lot of us -- like you -- are assuming from his rhetoric.
I'm writing a profile of him, so have been looking deep into his foreign policy statements, and I can't find an explicit rejection of the view I'm ascribing -- and I think, that if he had learned the lessons I'm talking about, he wouldn't have said what he did about Iran. Now, I really would like to see evidence to the contrary, and it would be important that I see it before I finish this piece. So if you've got anything, I'd like to see it.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 11:55:16 AM
I remember my disseration adviser (I'm a political scientist who studies conflict) stating at the time why the Iraq war was a bad idea. It even makes a nice sound bite, "Aggression is aggression." The point being that all countries in all wars claim that they are justified in going to war because they are defending themselves (or their 'national interest' as they define it). Thus, international law (in treaties, the UN charter, etc.) declares (unfortunately most of the time with some lawyer speak qualifications about 'national interest') it illegal to take aggressive action because to say some acts of aggression are justifiable is a slippery slope to more war.
Preventive or pre-emptive war will never be perceived as just by those who are not the aggressor. But don't we have an obligation to prevent first strikes? Of course, but not by attacking in the first place. We are subjecting ourselves to some risk, but the potential costs of a suffering a first-strike are far outweighed by the benefits of the moral high ground. I have yet to see any candidate make such a direct case for why the war was a bad idea in the first place (I'm not holding my breath).
Posted by: Drew | Feb 2, 2007 12:03:35 PM
Two things. First, Clinton's just come out in support of attacking Iran. And second, Edwards' "I was wrong" on Iraq means jack shit when he's willing to support further wars. When someone shoots you, apologizes, and then brandishes a loaded gun at you again, it's not wise to accept the apology.
Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 2, 2007 12:18:45 PM
Ezra, I'm sure you've read Edwards' earlier writings on Iran for the CFR, have you read the report he co-authored on Russia? It reads like it takes all of Cheney's statements about Russia at face value as "solid intelligence." That's really worrying to me, as it's clear that the Russia story is just a lot more complex than "new Cold War brewing, news at 11."
Posted by: Meh | Feb 2, 2007 12:28:58 PM
Eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat through preemptive war does not necessarily have to include imposing a "pluralistic democracy". It seems to me that many wish to set the bar so high as to preclude war altogether. That would be mistake.
Posted by: Stuart Browning | Feb 2, 2007 12:34:20 PM
Stuart, how about this: if Iran is months away from getting nukes, and has a popular fundamentalist government headed by a lunatic, then war will be acceptable. Note that only two and a half of the above conditions are true now: Iran is years away from getting nukes, Ahmadinejad is less popular in Iran than Bush is in the US, and the Supreme Leader, Khamenei, is a basically conservative guy.
Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 2, 2007 12:41:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
