Matthew Yglesias

I finally came off the fence against the war just a little while before Mr. Yglesias did. The thing that finally persuaded me that it was a bad idea was the administration's inept way of making its case -- or put another way, repetitively shooting itself in the foot. It could have made a very persuasive case for going after Saddam in the name of collective security -- a classic liberal idea, and the foundation for a half-century of pretty solid diplomatic success. Instead, it decided to trot out a really embarrassing parade of 'evidence' that got shot down almost as soon as it was produced. So the clincher for me was that whatever the merits of the war itself, this administration was simply not competent to bring it off successfully. As it turns out, the Bush crowd is in even further over their heads than I thought possible.

Since this is my first post here, I'd like thank Mr. Yglesias for a very interesting and informative site.

Matt,

Are you sure that your conversion has nothing to do with your desire to achieve fame and fortune as a member of the D.C.-based Democratic intelligentsia? I mean, how many parties are you going to be invited to, how many job opportunities are going to come your way, how many scoops are you going to get if you have a reputation as a Joe Lieberman style hawk?

Mr. Sglover,
This is a recipe for paralysis. In a democracy any faction is going to doubt the ability of its opponents. This is not a very good reason to oppose a specific policy that is good on its own merits.

In this case, if Mr.Bush were re-elected this November, you would have been against an invasion of Iraq until you have another chance at an acceptable government in 2008 ?

It also just seems strange to me that one can oppose a war strategy because the governments propaganda is deficient. It is a very small tail wagging a very big dog.

"Since that time, facts have come to light (both newly available facts about the past as well as facts about what has transpired in the past year) that have led me to believe my conversion to the anti-war side was appropriate."

I can't help thinking of The Dude in The Big Lebowski: "But new shit has come to light!"

DBL, Matt Y.'s past words are a matter of record here, and you can read for yourself how his position on the Iraq war evolved long before he started working for The American Prospect.

BTW, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

"It also just seems strange to me that one can oppose a war strategy because the governments propaganda is deficient. It is a very small tail wagging a very big dog. "

Alright, I suppose I could've been more explicit about my point: In late 2002 / early 2003 the administration's incompetent -- and I mean *really* imcompetent, amateurish, embarrassing -- approach to selling its war seemed to foreshadow even more costly mistakes in the execution of the war and its aftermath. I've seen nothing since to persuade me that my perception was incorrect. Far from it, in fact.....

"It could have made a very persuasive case for going after Saddam in the name of collective security -- a classic liberal idea, and the foundation for a half-century of pretty solid diplomatic success. "

I find this wholly unconvincing. This tactic had been tried, by someone whom I suspect you believe has significantly better diplomatic skills--Bill Cinton. He could barely convince anyone to continue sanctions.

For me, it came down to the fact that I tought that the war in Iraq was a huge risk. It was a risk that presented the possibilty of great consequences down the line, but it would require a deft hand to pull through all the possible disasters that could arise. It was hardly an easy question. I think I could have supported a war, but I ended up not supporting this war. Call it partisanship or whatever, but I simply did not trust that the Bush administration was competent enough to pull through the minefield that the war and its aftermath presented.

Regretfully, I feel fairly vindicated in this view. The postwar planning was a joke. The administration has managed to engender negative world opinion in such a way as to be dangerous towards our security. Is all hope lost now? Of course not. Things could still get a lot better, and I really hope that they do. But I have still have not been presented with much evidence that the actions of this administrations, and not just its words, will do much of anything to further that end.

And, just as an aside, I have to say that the war in Iraq was never an easy question, and I resent those who claim that it ever was.

Mr. Sglover,
I cannot see any errors in the governments execution of the war in Iraq, and I have collected every account I could find on the subject. The campaign was conducted with extremely high professionalism, aggressiveness, and low-level initiative.
The problems post-war are minor in comparison to the scale of task and the condition of the country as it transpired. These things are never neat and there will always be something to criticize.

I'm fascinated that anyone can find the most efficient utilization of military force since Leonidas stood at Thermopylae to be some kind of disaster.

I'm also curious as to exactly what it is you now think you know about "the intelligence, the Future of Iraq Project, and the evolving facts on the ground" that impels your bootlegger turn. Please elucidate, or at least reply with relevant dates and post titles.

I think you initially supported at least the idea of the war because, based on what we - and I include in "we" you, me, both the current and predecessor presidents and the Director of Central Intelligence - all thought we knew about Saddam's weaponry efforts, it made sense. In actual fact, it made all kinds of sense for a lot of other reasons too. WMD or no WMD, those still apply. You don't seem to agree that there were, and still are, such other reasons.

Luisalegria,
The errors of the government in the execution of the war are near boundless. Every military planner worth a hill of beans realizes that there are numerous stages to war planning, including post-war planning and execution. The post-war execution by the government was atrocious, due both to them ignoring the plans that had been drawn up, isolating the experts in the government who had been studying Iraq and planning for such an change, and trusting those who their own experts in the State Department and the CIA believed were untrustworthy. What was most appalling was the government ignoring its own military experts on the costs, requirements, and needs to maintain a stable post-war occupation.

The US military and its leadership from the top ranks on down has held itself up to it's proudest fighting traditions - the civilian leadership however has shown an ineptness that is criminal. The problems post-war are legion, both because of the condition that we found the country in, and the problems the Bush administration created with its bungling. And all the mistakes that have plagued this bright and shining lie have held none accountable - not one person in State, Defense, or the CIA has resigned or been fired for their role in this cock-up, not one person in this administration has stepped forward to say, "This was my mistake" on anything. That "these things are never neat" is no excuse for throwing ones hands up and ignoring the glaring truth that not enough was done and no one has accepted any responsibility.

"The problems post-war are minor in comparison to the scale of task and the condition of the country as it transpired. These things are never neat and there will always be something to criticize. "

Well, I'm glad *you're* happy with it, then.

Indeed "these things" are never neat. But it always struck me as odd that an administration which seems hostile to the very notion of government acting in the public interest decided that it was perfectly feasible to re-engineer a society whose language and culture are utterly alien to Americans.

Maybe things will turn out for the better in Iraq. We can only hope. But the risk-reward ratio seemed small at the time, and it's not clear to me that it's getting any better. I suspect that all we're doing is undercutting whatever dwindling Islamic advocacy for forebearance might still exist.

"I'm fascinated that anyone can find the most efficient utilization of military force since Leonidas stood at Thermopylae to be some kind of disaster. "

I don't want to disparage the performance of the American military (which may be, worryingly, increasingly perceived as the *sole* institution with any integrity and competence). But I think the comparison to Thermopylae is a little overblown. Ever since the Civil War the American approach to warfare has emphasized massive resources. In that sense, we're a lot more like the Persians at Thermopylae, than Leonidas' boys.

I find this wholly unconvincing. This tactic had been tried, by someone whom I suspect you believe has significantly better diplomatic skills--Bill Cinton. He could barely convince anyone to continue sanctions.

OTOH, Clinton and other European nations did line up to oust Milosevic under the aegis of NATO.

BTW, Bill Clinton does have significantly better diplomatic skills than Dubya does. Check out his speech that he gave to an Arab audience in Bahrain (or was it Qatar?) a few months ago. It's a stunningly adept piece of work, masterfully delivered.

I can't help but believe that if Clinton had been President after 9/11, we'd not be in such a fix with our erstwhile allies as we are now, even if Clinton had moved to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq.

To go to war, with a lie as justification is always wrong. To install a convicted criminal in charge of your conquest is quite disgraceful.

This is a very consistent Bushie meme. If you're not for them, you're a "Democratic hack" and, more remarkably, always have been, even if you were previously registered as a Republican voter and acted Republican in every way.

In my rural county the Bushies take it one step further- they cross party lines in the primary and endorse candidates who are openly Republican as Democratic candidates. Of course the only people still living here are those who gave up on success about 20 years ago, so the disconnect doesn't bother us. Still a little weird when we're told that any REAL Democrat will be supporting Bush this year.

Maybe this is how the Bushies will explain why their ex-employees always turn out to be "Democratic hacks".

That's a good one about this being a flawless military campaign. Almost every day we read about a soldier injured or killed in an "accident" that wasn't combat. I think I'll stand way back when luisaliegra chops the celery.

Actually this is one of the biggest blunders in history. We actually captured the enemy army and their weapons. And then we let them go. While we were still in their country. Hard to remember when this has happened before in history.

Mr. Sglover,
I recall the US acting in a similar way in the case of Japan, 50 years ago, which was in a very similar circumstances and at least as foreign as Iraq, and of my own country, the Philippines, 100 years ago.
This has been done successfully, to re-create a country in your image. In fact because of the intensity of US cultural influence in the world, I would have to say that nobody has ever done it better. A few dead mullahs in Iran and that place would be a pro-US democracy in very short order also.

Mr. Serialcatowner,
The Italian army, 1943. The Japanese and German armies, 1945. 80,000 Iraqis, 1991.

Lord. I got so wrapped up in the BS from both sides that I temporarily forgot what my own , totally irrelevant position, was. The confusion was that I am handed a false dichotomy of either Saddam or Bin Laden, when I think both, + Pakistan + Syria + Iran etc.

Compare resources allocated toward the current war effort with either 1942 or even 1967 and try to tell me this is a real war and not just a cynical reelection ploy.

And tell the citizens of Madrid that we can afford to take 50 years to win this "war". A half dozen more events like Madrid spaced out over the next ten years....well I dread to even imagine the consequences.

luisalegria writes: In a democracy any faction is going to doubt the ability of its opponents. This is not a very good reason to oppose a specific policy that is good on its own merits.

I think it certainly is. Some things are only worth doing if they are done well. For example: suppose I have a heart murmur. If the only heart surgeon I can find is incompetent, then I have to decide whether my odds of dying are worse with the heart murmur or on the operating table.

If Saddam was not an imminent threat, we could afford to wait for a better surgeon.

Mr. McCullough,
Saddam was not an imminent threat. However not removing him meant preserving an on-going risk, plus preserving the deplorable status quo in the Middle East.
Also, the US had the political momentum and resolve that would very likely have dissipated by the time you had gotten your wished-for new administration, and their hands would again be tied as was Clintons. The iron was hot.

Mr. Mcmanus,
A full-blown war mobilization and security crackdown in the US would cause an economic disaster, more abroad than in the US. I think the administration is handling this all in a subtle, nuanced, responsible manner.
If the population of Morocco goes berserk as a result of a full-blown war against Islam, many more people in Spain are going to die, not to mention many more in Morocco.

"A full-blown war mobilization and security crackdown in the US would cause an economic disaster, more abroad than in the US."

short version: I refuse to give up my tax cut, or make any sacrifices for this war. This is the Bush "patriotism".

You know, does anyone find it all crazy that the administration comes out and says that far more civilians than soldiers will die in this war? That they say this ahead of time?

Ahh this is trollish. The left and right may both feel brave and righteous, this is definitely a feel good kind of war....a war on tv

Mr. Mcmanus,
Is the US radically reduces imports as a result of the loss of disposable income (thats what happens in a mobilization) what would the result be on the economies of East Asia ?

luislegria, I feel I have to respond to a direct question, but the argument is entirely hypothetical and does feel trollish. No one out there supports a massive acceleration of this war, so it is pretty pointless.

The world economy would, of course, collapse. The nations of East Asia might as well join us in the war effort....which would mean a much shorter war. What were the world economic conditions for neutrals during WWII. Not great, I suspect.

Anyone who was paying attention (I was) knew that Iraq was the test case for the forward policy of pre-emptive war. Anyone who knows history knows that this was Germany's policy before 1914 and before 1939. It's a lose-lose policy. Always was, and always will be. I opposed it for that reason and for another practical reason. It was too risky. Both fears have played out. We've lost all our allies but one (the Brits are honorable enough to stay with us in the mistakes we share -- like Satan's Angels in Milton's Paradise Lost), and we are in a situation that will cost us a lot of blood and more money than anyone can imagine to sort out. These points were obvious to anyone last February who had any knowledge of history and politics. Anything else was wishful thinking or inexperience. I lay MY's support to the latter. Hithcens, on the other hand, wallows in the former.

I expected to be alone in my objection, as I often am, which seems a good reason for posting it. I still maintain that our invasion was illegal. I feel dirty. Knut makes a similar point. I supported Afghanistan, the Gulf War, and our Balkan activities, and I have a cousin leaving for Baghdad. Iraq I never came near supporting, though I'd have accepted it with a UN resolution (no we never got one or came anywhere near one).

I recall the US acting in a similar way in the case ... of my own country, the Philippines, 100 years ago.

You probably don't want to use the Phillipines as an example. It took, what? decades of fighting brutal guerilla warfare to pacify the country, followed by decades of domestic dictatorship?

Mr. Constantine,
Actually no. The Philippines was largely pacified by 1902, save the never-before-pacified Muslim south. The Spanish had been at constant war there. That was pacified for the first time by the US and Philippine constabulary by 1908-1910 (and stayed quiet till the 1970's), but that was far from a difficult campaign. The Philippines was something of a paragon of enlightenment and liberty in Asia under US governors and a local democratic assembly until it was conquered by Japan in 1941.
After WWII the Philippines was a democratic nation with the full slew of civil liberties until the Marcos coup of 1972. Even then the dictator had to follow the forms of legality and democracy, until he was overthrown by a democratic opposition in 1986. The place has been a free country in every way since.

"The Philippines was largely pacified by 1902 .... that was far from a difficult campaign." Posted by luisalegria

Casualties during the American occupation of the Philippines:
4,234 American soldiers killed
2,818 wounded
Filipino casualties
Roughly 20,000 soldiers killed
250,000 to 600,000 civilians were killed

Mr.luisalegria apparently has no great respect for the lives of Filipinos nor for the facts of history. The American occupation was always resented and many Filipinos joined the Japanese during their invasion although they did later rejoin the Americans due to the fact that Japanese rule was even more harsh. We all can remember how badly the people of the Philippines, once the dictatorship of Marcos was overthrown, wanted the American military bases out of their country and finally accomplished removing that last remnant of American colonialism.

Mr. Mike,
The US casualties you mention were from the five years of war from 1898-1902. The Filipino civilian death toll is at best a very rough estimate between the last Spanish census (very speculative) and the first US one, and would have included all the deaths as a result of the disruptions of the Philippine revolution against Spain, from 1896. This would be famines, typhoid and and cholera mainly.
The Philippines was a rather peaceful place from 1902-1941.
Some people resented the US occupation, some of my granduncles for instance. Some Filipinos joined the Japanese. This was a distinctly unpopular move, even early on.
Most Filipinos were loyal to the US, to the point of death.
The bases situation would have been resolved in 1991 had the US wished to stay. It did not - the bases were unusable after the Pinatubo volcano exploded.
I do not think you have an accurate picture of Filipino attitudes.

Armed Liberal says:

What's interesting to me is that he's skating close to what I have wondered about for a while - the position that the war would have been OK if only it hadn't been prosecuted by Bush.

Look, this may not be the reason MY opposed the war, but it's a perfectly respectable one. If you've ever been in management, you quickly learn to give the imcompetent folks relatively simple and uncomplicated tasks. You give the difficult tasks to people who are serious about their job and good at it. It's a simple rule but a good one, and presidental administrations are not exempt.

luisaliegra, when the Allies invaded Germany in 1944-45, they not only put the POWs in internment camps, but went house-to-house seizing ALL weapons as they passed through the towns. This was followed by a total clampdown on Germany, including bans on fraternization of any kind, while they made sure there would be no fifth-column or die-hard movement by hidden Nazis.

The Italian situation is different because the Italian government switched sides and was actually at war with Germany by the end. Between 1942-1944 the Allies made strenuous efforts to have the new Italian leadership surrender units intact and remove large parts of the Italian army from the fighting. In the event, whatever decisions were made turned out to be correct, with no substantial resistance coming from former Italian troops.

Try again.

Mr. Catowner,
It is my understanding that most German and Japanese troops in their own country were never imprisoned or interned, they just went home.
The Italian army generally dissolved itself on the spot in Sicily, much like the Iraqi army. The same happened to most of the Italian army in mainland Italy, even for those units that did continue to fight for the Germans in Southern Italy in 1943.