I admit that Saddam Hussein was a son of a bitch who treated his own people terribly and was no friend to his neighbors. There might be a few Iraqis who lost their privileged positions after the American invasion who miss the days of Saddam, but most Iraqis didn’t have any love for him and wouldn’t want to see him back in power. However, every Iraqi who lost a loved one or who was ruined financially or who was forced out of their home or into exile has to have some pretty mixed feelings. Women who lost the freedom to dress casually or to feel secure going out alone or to college or a job, have to feel ambivalent. The Sunnis in Iraq are upset that the Shi’a are now in charge of the country, breaking a streak of half a millennium. Christians saw their businesses shut down and their communities destroyed. And, naturally, if you were one of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are now dead as a result of the invasion and ensuing chaos, you definitely are not better off.
These are the reasons I find the title of Mitt Romney’s new book No Apology: The Case for American Greatness to be so grating. We didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction and we ruined countless lives. Sure, the future for Iraq might be brighter than it would have been otherwise (maybe) but at what cost? Why not apologize? Shouldn’t we apologize for Abu Ghraib? Have you seen the spike in birth defects in Fallujah?
I don’t know anyone who thinks well of people who refuse to apologize, so why would we think any different standard should apply to countries. What is Romney arguing? The United States makes mistakes. Sometimes we make really, really big mistakes that get hundreds of thousands of people killed. It might be painful to say we’re sorry for these things, but it certainly doesn’t hurt us to do it.
American leadership has been incredibly important in the post-war years, but it only works with the consent of the international community in the context of an international system. Great power breeds envy and resentment even in the best of times. A colossus that makes huge blunders and never apologizes is not making a case for greatness, or even for a continuation of its power.
Haven’t you been paying attention to George Bush I?:
They don’t care.
I have to think that is much akin to saying that a woman’s future might be brighter than if she hadn’t been raped…
I think Iraq’s future is uncertain. But it is possible that Iraq will ultimately benefit from having the Ba’athists forcibly removed from power. I think that depends on whether the country can maintain a democratic character and stay united. I do think the potential is there. But we’re talking hypotheticals and a long time frame. Even if it happens, it won’t vindicate the decision to invade. There was too much short-term cost.
Saddam and the ba’athists did a decent job of running things before we invaded, even though it was an apartheid-like situation. What was doing so much harm when we had them “in a box” were the international sanctions. Something had to be done at some point to stop the suffering of the people, but what we did (invade, occupy) was not the answer. Now that we have forced quasi-democracy (with guns to heads) on a people not used to such a thing, it is hard to say how things will work out but many there don’t want this arrangement. After all, the bastards who did all of this to them were the “democracies” of the world.
I AM fairly certain that, regardless of how things got this way, that whatever WE (the US) think about how things should happen from here on will have no effect on how things actually go. We blew it. They want us out. They will do what they’re going to do. We should just mind our own business for a while (like a thousand years) after this magnitude of blunder.
I don’t agree at all that Saddam and the Ba’athists did ‘a decent job’ of running things either during the sanctions regime or prior to it.
The only good thing I can think to say about them is that they had a fairly secular outlook. But a secular outlook decoupled from any humanistic values isn’t worth a damn.
Didja see this:?
It’s everywhere in Iraq.
Wait till hundreds of thousands of US soldiers start getting cancer in their late 20s and early 30s. The DPU smoke from the initial invasion … ugh … and god knows what else is in all those experimental weapons and the cut-rate provisions and living conditions all those sicko contractors were subjecting them to.
And then the Senate will want to deny them medical care.
Makes my skin crawl.
There will never be a benefit to having attacked & destroyed another country at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives.
There never was justification for it, & never will be, no matter what manner of revisionism is applied.
Here’s the problem with a formal, official apology: We then owe the country & peoples of Iraq trillions of dollars in reparations. The sign in the china shop says, “You break it, you buy it.”
The only way to avoid that obligation is to say WE didn’t break it — it was those lying, thieving psychopaths Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al who did it, here’s the video of their public executions and all their financial assets including Haliburton, K&R… We hope you’ll accept this small token of our sincere apology.
As for that whole “greatness… continuation of…power” thing. Too late! The world is so grateful and relieved that we put on our Obama mask but they ain’t fooled. We’re only an election or two away from possibly putting on a scary Bring-on-the-Rapture mask.
Your plan is MUCH better than a mere apology. Let’s do it. Of course we DO owe them reparations, but blood-debt might suffice.
Manly men don’t apologize, Boo. Especially when they’re pretty-boys like Mittens.
Personally I find the new Culture of Apology repellent, so have to go along with Mittens to that extent. How would the apology go, exactly? Would “We destroyed your country and killed hundreds of thousands of you and made millions of you homeless and stateless. Sorry about that” make it all better? Really?
I don’t get why you’d keep using words like “blunder” and “mistake” to describe the atrocity. There was no error here, it was pure criminal intent. Not like we accidentally sent a bunch of armed invaders to the wrong country or something (though I still wonder if it was all because Bush didn’t notice that one country ended with a q and the other with an n, and so sent the invaders to the wrong place).
Seriously, an apology without a full prosecutorial investigation and reparations seems to me worse than nothing. I mean, turn it around — would an apology from bin Laden while he continues to behave as usual make things better with us?
Maybe, in line with our “greatness”, we could promise them 40 acres and a mule.
while I’m still not completely clear on why we invaded Iraq, I am confident that it didn’t go as planned. So, however deliberate the action, there is an element of mistake and blunder involved.
We didn’t go there intending to destroy their society or cause a sectarian war and massive dislocation. We went there despite dire warnings from smart people that that is what would result.
Huh? We went there despite clear warnings of what would happen, and it happened, and still it was a “mistake”?? The firemen are all yelling, keep fire away from that gasoline spill, and you throw a match at it anyway, and the inevitable happens, and it’s still just a “mistake”? C’mon.
I feel quite clear on why we invaded: it made the president look manly and decisive to a shocked and enraged population. Iraq was secular, isolated, and had a nasty regime. It was full of Muslims. What other ME country could we have destroyed with so little likelihood of blowback from the rest of the region?
Maybe you’re correct (about the mistake aspect). However, to give another comparable example, take privatization of social security and gambling.
You (generic you) know that the game’s set up in the house’s favor, but it doesn’t matter because you’re different from all those other schmucks. You’re smart and unique and special and you’re gonna beat the system!
It could just be an extension of what you said with manliness: men are known to be more willing to take risks than women. So despite the warnings, he thought he could still beat the system.
There was no system to beat, because he saw no risks to what he did. He got to be the Big Cheese commander in chief and dress up in military costumes and have the kind of people who mattered say he was a great leader. All else was irrelevant, even invisible.
Right you are.
Also the people in Iraq are what color?
When Boy Bush got off the fighter jet, someone asked if he had flown it. Bush said,
“Yeah, I flew it.”
Where was the press?
It proved that Bush was stark raving mad, telling stories from fantasyland.
Clinton got away with sniper fire, she’s SoS.