So I rarely read Dionne for informational purposes. I read him on occasion to see what he has to say, but it rarely informs. This column does raise an interesting issue that has arisen over the Iraq War. He notes two senators with doubts about the war despite signs of success:
Both note that Bush's original reason for going to war -- weapons of mass destruction -- fell apart, and new claims that the war was really about spreading democracy have the feel of an after-the-fact rationale.
So close to being rational. So close ...
Let's try this one more time. WMD were one reason for the war and not the sole reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom. We relied on this politically in the international arena because of the British and saw no harm since everybody thought it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam had chemical weapons. Remember how opponents of the war complained, prior to the war, that we couldn't settle on one reason for war and kept bringing up all kings of reasons? Why we needed one reason was beyond me but they cannot now claim that all the rest are null.
Even so, it is clear that Saddam was prepared to break out of the box he was in and go for WMD. And we have discovered some old chemical shells, including one that detonated as an IED. Which raises the quesiton of where else might they be. Buried in Iraq? In Syria? So the war did stop Saddam from getting a WMD arsenal and the question of whether he had them on the eve of war is not closed.
But back to the other point. Even if we assume that WMD were the only reason and even if we assume that all the evidence that we've uncovered doesn't point to activities designed to get WMD, are we to ignore the end of genocide as a sign of victory? Is the end of torture and repression worth nothing? Is getting a friend in place of an enemy to count as worthless? Is the creation of a budding democracy a meaningless accomplishment?
Because if so, then World War II was not a victory for us. Look at the declarations of war on Japan and Germany. Both speak of our efforts to "bring the conflict to a successful termination." No mention of victory, even.
Kind of vague, wouldn't you say? Perhaps that wily FDR just wanted something so imprecise that nobody could question the end of the war.
But certainly, since they weren't mentioned, we can't count ending the Holocaust as a victory. We can't count changing Japan, Germany, and Italy from enemies to allies as a victory. We can't count turning those countries into democracies as a victory since we did not ever say that we were trying to impose democracy at gunpoint. We just wanted a successful termination.
And let's not even go into the fact that we simply substituted Soviet domination of central Europe for Nazi control. How much of a victory was that (with all due apologies to humanities departments in US colleges whose faculty do certainly consider that a victory for their side)?
But at least we are one up on the British and French. Our reason for entering the war was vague. The British and French went to war to preserve Polish independence. There was an embarassing gap from 1939 to 1989 until Poland was free. But on paper, their reason for war is finally justified--though with France out of NATO, this French victory will have to rank beside the hallowed "Resistance" to the Nazis in France as a feat of French arms.
Iraq is a victory for the US based on what we have accomplished thus far and the victory will become greater if we can help Iraq create a prosperous democracy. It will become even greater still if the rumblings spreading out from the epicenter of the Sunni triangle where our enemies are bing ground down spread victory to a wider area.
Much remains to be done, but looking for reasons why we shouldn't count what we've done already as victory is just silly. This is looking for after-the-fact rationales for opposing a war that is bringing great benefits to us and the Arab world. But then, this is a Dionne column. I expect silly.
