Positive Liberty

The President’s speech this morning on the Iraq War was excellent, and deserves our attention, considering our recent posts on the subject. To me, the most important thing about the speech was not that the President said anything new, but precisely the opposite—that he said what he has been saying all along. Since, unfortunately, few people today seem to actually read or listen to the original sources, and seem instead to rely on soundbytes and commentary by others, I think it’s important to post many of the pertinent sections here.

“I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq,” he said. He then explained,

September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein…. We cannot allow the world’s most dangerous men to get their hands on the world’s most dangerous weapons. In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

This, of course, is true. It would be irresponsible to commit ourselves to such an idea as that we cannot act until after force has actually been used against us, just as it would be inappropriate for us to wait for a robber to shoot the hostage before we shoot the robber.

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy. Over the course of a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with more than a dozen United Nations resolutions—including demands that he respect the rights of the Iraqi people, disclose his weapons, and abide by the terms of a 1991 cease-fire. He deceived international inspectors, and he denied them the unconditional access they needed to do their jobs. When a unanimous Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to comply with that final opportunity. At any point along the way, Saddam Hussein could have avoided war by complying with the just demands of the international community. The United States did not choose war—the choice was Saddam Hussein’s.

These statements are all true.

When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.

So much for the notion that the President has “never acknowledged he has made a mistake” and so forth. But, acknowledging we were wrong is a dangerous business because we must not say we are wrong about things that we are right about, lest we hamper our attempts to do right in the future. It would be extremely hazardous for us to decide, based on the faulty intelligence this time around, that, when the next time comes, we must not act preemptively. Error obviously suggests caution the next time around, but it cannot lead us to timidity.

As President, I’m responsible for the decision to go into Iraq—and I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that. At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil-for-food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs once the sanctions collapsed and the world looked the other way. Given Saddam’s history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.

This seems correct to me. There does not appear to be any rhetorical device; it is a straightforward logical argument. The evidence at the time showed Hussein to be a threat; he was certainly committing atrocities; the war was justified.

Unfortunately, the President failed to mention what I think was another very important reason for attacking Hussein: keeping the war in Iraq, where it belongs, instead of the streets of New York City. By keeping terrorists there instead of encouraging them to come here, we were able to protect Americans from terrorist attacks.

We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.

As I stated in a speech in the lead-up to the war, a liberated Iraq could show the power of freedom to transform the Middle East by bringing hope and progress to the lives of millions. So we’re helping the Iraqi people build a lasting democracy that is peaceful and prosperous and an example for the broader Middle East. The terrorists understand this, and that is why they have now made Iraq the central front in the war on terror.

I believe that a more democratic Iraq would, indeed, be a great asset to our side in the conflict. Whether we are accomplishing it in the right manner is a separate issue. But note that the President is not claiming that humanitarianism was the only cause for the war. It was one among several causes. But it was, and remains, a legitimate cause.

I strongly believe a democratic Iraq is a crucial part of our strategy to defeat the terrorists, because only democracy can bring freedom and reconciliation to Iraq, and peace to this troubled part of the world. Our efforts to advance freedom in Iraq are driven by our vital interests and our deepest beliefs. America was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and we believe that the people of the Middle East desire freedom as much as we do. History has shown that free nations are peaceful nations. And as Iraqi democracy takes hold, Iraqi citizens will have a stake in a common and peaceful future.

I fail to see what is wrong with this as a theoretical matter. As a practical matter, of course, we may not be doing it well, and it may, as a practical matter, not be amenable to being done well. But as a matter of political theory, I think it undeniable that a free and democratic Iraq would be a tremendous asset to our side. Certainly our enemies think so!

Note also that the President does lay out determining factors for victory. In our posts below we complained that the War on Terror is so vague that it does not allow us to determine when we have succeeded. Although Bush did not solve this problem completely, he does provide us the factors he will use in deciding when victory has been achieved in Iraq:

Victory will be achieved by meeting certain clear objectives: [1] when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, [2] when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people, and [3] when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country. These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq. As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. And when victory is achieved, our troops will then come home, with the honor they have earned.

Although these objectives are vague, they do not seem to me to be too vague to serve as goals for military and political victory. Obviously, even in the United States, crime and violence are a feature of daily life, and they will always be so in Iraq. But it is possible to point to a society and say that its democracy is not threatened by terrorism or that the military is capable of protecting the nation’s people, or that the nation is not a safe haven for terrorists. Thus, these objectives do seem clear enough to serve as indicators of victory and therefore of the accomplishment of our aims.

Further, Pres. Bush’s remarks about immediate withdrawal seem reasonable to me:

[T]here are four reasons why I believe that setting an artificial deadline would be a recipe for disaster.

First, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the Iraqis. As Iraqis are risking their lives for democracy, it would tell them that America is more interested in leaving than helping them succeed, put at risk all the democratic progress they have made over the past year.

Secondly, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the enemy. It would tell them that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run. It would vindicate the terrorists’ tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder. It would embolden the terrorists and invite new attacks on America.

Third, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the region and the world. It would tell our friends and supporters that America is a weak and unreliable ally, and that when the going gets tough, America will retreat.

Finally, setting an artificial deadline would send the wrong message to the most important audience—our troops on the front line. It would tell them that America is abandoning the mission they are risking their lives to achieve, and that the sacrifice of their comrades killed in this struggle has been in vain.

Once again, no rhetoric—clear, reasonable points—and, I think, undeniably correct. The withdrawal of federal troops from the conquered Confederate states in 1877 is universally recognized as overly hasty and an unmitigated disaster for freedmen in those states. It delayed the civil rights struggle for an entire century, during which mass terror, murder, and oppression were allowed to reign without challenge from the federal government. Terrorist groups such as the KKK were given a pass because the American people were unwilling to see the mission through, to accomplish the reasonably ascertainable goals of Reconstruction. Unfortunately, I believe that we will do the same thing to the Iraqi people. But I agree with the President that we should not.

Trackback URI |