I would imagine that many of you are finding a lot to be infuriated by in the current retrospectives regarding the Iraq War -- the non-apology apologies, the sheer pretense in some instances that the war was redeeemed by "the surge," and, of course, the "well I was wrong for the right reasons and you were right for the wrong reasons" rationalizations. It's always impressive to see a complete and utter debacle treated as though it was really some sort of split-decision.
I was not blogging during the glorious war era, so I do not really have a track record to defend. I was a war skeptic, mainly because I viewed it as an outrageous diversion from the fight against Al Qaeda. I was also troubled by the idea of preemptive war as an explicit doctrine of American foreign policy. But I have to say, my opposition to the war was far too muted and completely lacking in the sense of just how disastrous this adventure would prove to be. I completely underestimated the mendacity and incompetence of the Bush Administration in both making the case for and pursuing the war. It simply never occurred to me -- my intense dislike of the Administration notwithstanding -- that people with as much experience as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, et al. could be so completely cavalier about planning for something as grave as a war. I didn't imagine them to be the sociopathic incompetents they would prove to be.
I find that the losses of this war -- in lives both American and Iraqi lost or shattered, in money -- staggering, staggering sums that could have been used for so much good -- and in national reputation -- still make my blood boil. It's a feeling that really hasn't diminished much -- maybe because there has never been a proper calling out of those responsible and those who cheered them on, maybe because as we battle over fiscal and budget issues, I cannot help but think of the trillion or so dollars completely squandered in this benighted effort.
Many people have written things worth reading on this tenth anniversary. Fallows had an excellent piece, grimly titled "Why We Won't Learn from Iraq." Charles Pierce in a series of can't miss posts cuts several people a new, three-bedroom, two bath, double wide asshole, including Ezra Klein, (who had the excuse of youth in 2003, but really should avoid the Ken Pollack defense in 2013), Jonathan Chait ("ouch"), and the unspeakably loathsome David Ignatius.
And then there is this open letter to Paul Wolfowitz by Andrew Bacevich, which is in a league by itself. It is really a must read in terms of the broader foreign policy issues it raises. Bacevich dryly observes that "taken as a whole, the cost-benefit ratio [of the Iraq War] is cause for weeping." Left unsaid is the fact that Bacevich has far greater reasons to weep over this horrible war.
Honesty is a condition precedent to learning. One cannot learn lessons about events shrouded in bad faith. The American people will remain war weary and war wary for a time until their collective memories fade. But I see little to suggest that the movers and shakers in foreign policy or those who shape the public debate about such matters in the media have the capacity for honesty or self reflection, that would result in genuine painful wisdom having been obtained through this debacle -- certainly not on the basis of the lame mea culpas I have seen to date. And that might be the most infuriating thing of all about this godforsaken war.
