Shortly after U.S. forces marched
into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly
Standard published a jeering article
titled, "The Cassandra Chronicles:
The stupidity of the antiwar doom-
sayers." Among those the article
mocked was a "war novelist" named
James Webb, who is now the senator-
elect from Virginia.
The article's title was more re-
vealing than its authors knew. Peo-
ple forget the nature of Cassandra's
curse: although nobody would be-
lieve her, all her prophecies came
true.
And so it was with those who
warned against invading Iraq. At
best, they were ignored. A recent ar-
ticle in The Washington Post ruefully
conceded that the paper's account of
the debate in the House of Represent-
atives over the resolution authoriz-
ing the Iraq war - a resolution op-
posed by a majority of the Demo-
crats - gave no coverage at all to
those antiwar arguments that now
seem prescient.
At worst, those who were skeptical
about the case for war had their pa-
triotism and/or their sanity ques-
tioned. The New Republic now says
that it "deeply regrets its early sup-
port for this war." Does it also deeply
regret accusing those who opposed
rushing into war of "abject paci-
fism?"
Now, only a few neocon dead-enders
still believe that this war was any-
thing but a vast exercise in folly. And
those who braved political pressure
and ridicule to oppose what Al Gore
________
Give credit
where credit
is due.
________
has rightly called "the worst strategic
mistake in the history of the United
States" deserve some credit.
Unlike The Weekly Standard,
which singled out those it thought
had been proved wrong, I'd like to of-
fer some praise to those who got it
right. Here's a partial honor roll:
Former President George H. W.
Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explain-
ing in 1998 why they didn't go on to
Baghdad in 1991: "Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States
could conceivably still be an occu-
pying power in a' bitterly hostile
land."
Representative Ike Skeltdn, Sep-
tember 2002: "I have no doubt that
our military would decisively defeat
Iraq's forces and remove Saddam.
But like the proverbial dog chasing
the car down the road, we must con-
sider what we would do after we
caught it."
Al Gore, September 2002: "I am
deeply concerned that the course of
action that we are presently em-
barking upon with respect to Iraq
has the potential to seriously dam-
age our ability to win the war against
terrorism and to weaken our ability
to lead the world in this new centu-
ry."
Barack Obama, now a United
States senator, September 2002: "I
don't oppose all wars. What I am op-
posed to is a dumb war. What I am
opposed to is a rash war. What I am
opposed to is the cynical attempt by
Richard Perle and Paul Wolf owitz
and other armchair, weekend war-
riors in this administration to shove
their own ideological agendas down
our throats, irrespective of the costs
in lives lost and in hardships borne."
Representative John Spratt, Octo-
ber 2002: "The outcome after the
conflict is actually going to be the
hardest part, and it is far less cer-
tain."
Representative Nancy Pelosi, now
the House speaker-elect, October
2002: "When we go in, the occupation,
which is now being called the libera-
tion, could be interminable and the
amount of money it costs could be
unlimited."
Senator Russ Feingold, October
2002: "I am increasingly troubled by
the seemingly shifting justifications
for an invasion at this time... . When
the administration moves back and
forth from one argument to another,
I think it undercuts the credibility of
the case and the belief in its urgency.
I believe that this practice of shifting
justifications has much to do with the
troubling phenomenon of many
Americans questioning the adminis-
tration's motives."
Howard Dean, then a candidate for
president and now the chairman of
the Democratic National Committee,
February 2003: "I firmly believe that
the president is focusing our diplo-
mats, our military, our `intelligence
agencies, and even our people on the
wrong war, at the wrong time.
Iraqis a divided country, with Sunni.
Shia and Kurdish factions that share
both bitter rivalries and access to
large quantities of arms."
We should honor these people for
their wisdom and courage. We
should also ask why anyone who
didn't raise questions about the war
- or, at any rate, anyone who acted
as a cheerleader for this march of
folly - should be `taken seriously
when he or she talks about matters
of national security.
|