Victor Davis Hansen is always a good read for me. A historian and a journalist, Hansen always keeps perspective on things.

In this piece: The Plague of Success, he says that our successes have made our expectations greater and greater. He claims that at the outset, we would have scoffed at the successes we have had in Iraq and yet after those successes, we focus on the negatives.

Questions for debate:

Is there a sense of perspective missing from our evaluation of the war in Iraq?

Should we expect more? If so, on what basis?

Should we be content with our successes?

Is there a sense of perspective missing from our evaluation of the war in Iraq?

I'll answer this with another question. Is there a sense of perspective missing from our evaluation of the ramifications of 9/11?

Short answer is: yes. Realistically, perspective can only be gleaned from the vantage of time. I doubt we will come to understand what the Iraq War actually means any time in the near future.

Should we expect more? If so, on what basis? Should we be content with our successes?

We should evaluate the successes and failures of Iraq based on the asserted goals of both the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. There were many goals (justifications) argued with regard to Iraq. Each of these goals must be evaluated to determine if they were achieved or not and how well they were achieved (or not). Some of these goals we already know were not achieved such as uncovering Iraq's WMD. Other goals like "democratization" we must wait to see if they will bear fruit.

Is there a sense of perspective missing from our evaluation of the war in Iraq?

I'd answer this question by saying yes, because we never took the time to define what our conditions for success or failure were at the outset of the conflict. You can't very well evaluate whether you've been successful when you don't have a plan for what you'd like to accomplish in the first place.

At the outset of the conflict it is pretty clear we didn't have a plan for rebuilding Iraq and on top of that we were overconfident about both our abilities and how we'd be received. The oft cited quote by Richard Perle:


We all know what we were dealing with thanks to history and we know this statement couldn't be further from the truth.

At some point after we realized the Iraqis preferred to toss bombs at us rather than roses then line from the White House turned to a free and democratic Iraq. It didn't of course occur to them that there were more than a few mistakes we made before a single boot was in-country that could have been avoided if that was really our goal from the outset.

The examples are almost too many to count but as an example of what I'm talking about we did things like:
- Not moving to aggressively secure Saddam's large stores of conventional weapons (all now being used by insurgents)
- Quickly disbanding what was left of the Iraqi army and sending them home, to be bored and take up other pursuits.
- Not making a better attempt to have a truely international coalition behind the effort like George H. W. Bush did.
- Not planning to quickly get improvements and infrastructure in place to avoid an insurgency (i.e. the oil spot theory previously used by the British)
- Not getting started on training Iraqi security forces from the very begininng.

The way history unfolded suggests we went into Iraq for reasons other than bringing Democracy to the region unless we are willing to believe the military and our leaders are really that incompetent. The more likely explanation is that we got there and said "wow that was easy, now what?" Before we could really get into the "now what" question the insurgency was beginning and we got drawn in.

Should we be content with our successes?
We have had some success there.

- Saddam is on trial for his crimes
- The Iraqis have voted in democratic elections
- They have started the process of creating a government

We've also had a lot of failures and we've spent nearly half a trillion dollars on this war and over 2000 lives.

What we still haven't done is decided what our conditions for success or failure are. People have increasingly been pressing the President to do that. It is really the only rational thing to do at this point unless we just want to be there for the next 20 years building Iraq with the carrot being extended further out each year.

While that is noble we have plenty of problems at home that need attention. It is time to set a goal, meet it and come home.

Is there a sense of perspective missing from our evaluation of the war in Iraq?

I think the tone of this came from our leadership. Step one of the mission was to remove a potential threat to the United States with a track record of poor behavior and access to or a desire for some really nasty weapons. I think the latter was played beyond the intelligence would bear and therefore disappointment was sure to come.

As the WMD element proved not to be a winning issue, the emphasis of the mission expanded to the goal I always opposed because of the costs and responsibilities, and the difficulties of attaining it, this was the long term goal of reshaping the Middle East by implanting a seed of democracy to spread through the whole region. In this goal, American success became linked to the success of a stable democratic Iraq that would be a model of American-style American-implanted democracy that would turn the region to democracy in the coming years.

The bar for victory was set too high and the many setbacks in gaining progress in Iraq have proved a sharp relief for this longterm goal.

Should we expect more? If so, on what basis?

We should have expected more in the planning for military victory (which went swimmingly well) and how to move forward from there. War is an evil thing. It brings death and leaves angry survivors. It needs to be engaged in for the right reasons, and planned well. Part of war is ending it. We have an incomplete story in Iraq and many Americans still do not see a light of success at the end of the tunnel.

Should we be content with our successes? Certainly. We should be content that we quickly defeated the forces of Saddam. We could have offered a transitional period for Iraqis to step forward and receive power by using their demographic strengths to play a role in a new government. We could have placed a big Marshall plan type of incentive for any government that met certain criteria and we could have wished Iraq all the luck in the world of holding itself together after that with the promise of real assistance from us if a legitimate government asked for it. We could have asked for greater UN assistance because post-conflict in an area that organization performs fairly well in.

We need to get out of the bulls-eye and offer conditional assistance from the periphery.

Maybe my head is broken but boy did I get a totally completely different point from this article. I felt it was much more about the GWOT in general then it was about Iraq.

I think several things have happened. All those guys in Congress forget that we are a global community and as much as people in New York, Miami and San Francisco are listening to them so are those in London , Amman and Istanbul. And the reason is because a lot of our policies and actions in regards to the GWOT effect them as much as they do us. And that for many of them who are watching and waiting life isn't as free from terror as it is for us.

I agree with the article that because of OBL's failures (thats right OBL you are a failure) to further rage war in America it has allowed many politically to focus on other failures, like much of what the Bush admin has done in Iraq. But some of that is warranted and not just the behavior of the bored or idle.

I see more discussion on Iraq's failures than I ever do on her successes. I don't think it is the Iraq war success that is distracting to us.

We have had this horrible thing happen to us and in return we have just been plagued with images of a thousand more horrible things that we have done ourselves. It is overwhelming to take it all in and I think any normal, sympathetic person at some point gets mad. Some of us get mad more constructively and have more control over our anger, others don't.

I would argue the opposite...war is ugly, rancid and not something modern western society promotes. But it is sometimes unavoidable and that is where the collision occurs. How do we accpet these two things? Yes I guess it is expecting too much that we would be so lackadaisical about sending our children to die and asking that other's die with them. Makes you question why so many took so little consideration into this decision to begin with. Why weren't they more prepared for it?

1. No, I don't think so. According to our Commander-In-Chief, the mission was accomplished years ago. The vice-president said the Iraqis would greet us with flowers as their liberators. Paul Wolfowitz said the oil revenues from Iraq would pay for the post-war creation of a democratic Iraq.

Well, none of those things have happened. Why is that such supposedly smart guys like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the other neo-cons got it so wrong in Iraq? Maybe they never had more than a educated guess as to how things would go once Saddam Hussein was ousted. Maybe they really believed in their ice cream and candy scenarios. Maybe these smart guys aren't really all that smart.

Some of us aren't the least bit surprised at how Iraq has become The Most Violent Place On Earth.

2. I think most Americans had the expectation that we'd invade during breakfast, beat the crap out of the Iraqis by lunch, set up a new government by dinner and be home by dessert. Hasn't exactly gone the way the marketing forces behind the war quite predicted it though. One might think that 2,188 dead Americans, over 100,000 dead Iraqis and a billion dollars a week later, the United States would be further along in the messy business of building a democracy somewhere it's never existed before.

I particularly was amused by Mr. Hanson's remarks here: Now the horror of 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. Gone mostly are the flags on the cars, and the orange and red alerts. The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

R. U. kidding me Vic? It's the Democrats and the Left who are suffering from group amnesia and hardly mention Al Qaeda and Islamic fascism?

Oh, then it must be the Bizzaro Universe George W. Bush who was asleep when the Twin Towers were falling down around him. It must be Bizzaro George who never mentions Osama bin Laden and almost four years after the Al Qaeda leader slaughtered 3,000 Americans he STILL has not be captured or killed.

It must Bizzaro George who hasn't closed down The Taliban in Afghanistan who just stabbed a man eight times and beheaded him in front of the horror-filled eyes of his family for the crime of trying to educate girls.

It must be Bizzaro George and Bizzaro Evil Dick Cheney and Bizzaro Donald Rumsfeld under whose watch the threat of terrorism has bloomed into our most implacable nemesis. Then again, Bizzaro Evil Dick recently crowed that the fact we haven't been hit since 9/11 is proof our counter-terrorism measures are working well. Which of course glosses over the fact that it took years for bin Laden to arrange the logistical planning, funding and recruitment to pull off the Attack on America.

This liberal Democrat hasn't forgotten about the horror of 9/11 and how my then seven-year-old daughter asked me that night if the terrorist were going to come and kill us all. I haven't forgotten the horror of that day and how I watched it unfold from that morning until the next with eyes red from the tears. I just don't need smug revisionist pap from Victor Davis Hanson or a flag decal to remind me that the job of smashing Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist network hasn't been accomplished and largely because of the misadventure in Iraq.


3. Content? Cows are contented. Any and all of our "successes" in Iraq have come at the cost of a hideous waste of money, men and resources. Another seven U.S. soldiers were killed today by a roadside bomb. Over 130 Iraqis have been killed in bombings on buses, police recruitment stations and even a funeral.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber who jumped on a bus after security checks had been completed detonated an explosives belt among passengers heading to a Shiite city Thursday, killing 32 people and wounding 44, officials said.

Meanwhile, a U.S. soldier was killed Thursday when a roadside bomb exploded alongside an American convoy in eastern Baghdad, the U.S. military said. The command also said an American Marine died in a bombing on Wednesday west of the capital.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10370662/from/RL.3/

In Karbala, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive belt laced with ball bearings and a grenade, killing at least 63 and wounding 120.

In the attack’s aftermath, a woman and an infant girl in a bright red jumpsuit lay in a pool of blood, their faces covered by a sheet. Television images showed men ferrying the wounded in pushcarts. Passers-by loaded the wounded into the backs of cars and vans, and one black-clad woman stood crying while clutching her dead or wounded baby to her chest.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10703607/

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Militants ambushed a convoy of 60 tanker trucks heading to Baghdad from Iraq's largest refinery Wednesday, destroying four of the vehicles and damaging 15 others, police said.

The attack, by insurgents with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, came after the Beiji refinery had reopened Sunday after being closed since Dec. 18 because of threats against tanker drivers. The drivers began carrying fuel again this week after the government promised extra protection for the convoys.

Three Iraqi army vehicles, which had been guarding the convoy, were also destroyed in the attack about 25 miles north of Baghdad, police Lt. Abdul Zahra Qassim said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5522569,00.html

Okay, okay. I know I'm focusing on the "negative" instead of all the GOOD things that happen in Iraq that don't make news, but doggone it, I just kind of feel that all this carnage, blood, death and pain is worth focusing on just for a minute or so.

If this is "success" then God help us because we sure can't stand failure.

Yes, I think the Administration clearly shows a lack of perspective in their evaluation of the war in Iraq...I also think that the media clearly shows a lack of perspective in their evaluation of the war in Iraq.

The Administration: Everything's going fine in Iraq, it's perfect, things are going great, the President is the greatest liberator the world has ever seen.

The Media: Everything is going horribly in Iraq, soldiers are dropping like flies and their morale is drooping lower than Clinton's eyebags. Everyone hates us and Cindy Sheehan is right. The Iraqi goverment is inept and should be more productive despite the fact that it is 2 years old. This just in, the President laughs at crying babies.

------------------------
Here's the Iraqi Cycle, as I see it:

1.The Administration trys to tell us how great things are going to go and how smooth everything will go and how great everything will go and how perfect everything will go.

2. Everything goes okay to badly.

3. The Media exaggerates and makes it look like we've ruined the country and have failed at everything.

4. The Administration complains that the media is actually holding the
Administration to the standards it has set for Iraq.
---------------
And that's to say nothing about what the Democrats have done, also portraying Iraq as Hell on Earth. The American people are hearing two extreme versions of progress in Iraq from THREE mediums...which explains the lack of perspective.
------------------
And talk about a lack of perspective...the Administration is acting as though the original purpose of this war was to spread democracy to Iraq...That's not what we signed up for, we signed up for defending our country from a perceived threat...we're not the Democracy Wholesalers.

So...short answer:YES. The Administration tries to make Iraq out to be a utopia while the media portrays it as a dystopia...The answer lies in the middle, but we'll never actually know where in the middle, because our perspective is lost.


I'm content with our successes in Iraq to the extent that I'd be content with the extent of our success in anything we had no business or cause in doing. We shouldn't have been there to begin with, but it's nice to help a suffering people out, if we had to do it again, we shouldn't have gone in at all.

CP

The article was certainly interesting, and the core is indeed about a mismatch between expectations and achievements, but he can't resist getting a few more digs in against the pessimistic opponents of the Iraq War, foreign and domestic, than he can muster against the over-optimistic.

For example, the French and Germans are singled out for criticism because they "often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go". Last I looked, most terrorist insurgents that were shooting at coalition forces in Iraq were using Khalashnikovs, which aren't (to my knowledge) made in Paris or the Ruhr valley. They let usually only let loose the "terrorists" who haven't been charged or convicted of any crime.

And I think that if Hansen was writing in Europe he'd find the accusation of wiring money to terror groups both subject to libel proceedings and countered by reminders that American citizens have wired and continue to wire money to proscribed terror groups - Noraid ring any bells?

But that's by-the-by. While he mentions the expectations of both pro- and anti-war commentators, the only ones he spends much time proving wrong are the doom and gloom merchants.

You yourself said in your preamble that "we would have scoffed at the successes we have had in Iraq", but this is only true if the expectations we ALL had were those of the worst doomsayers.* If we listened to the advocates of invasion, as the majority of Americans (and, just, Britons) did, then it's not the doomsayers who badly let us down by giving us unrealistic and downright wrong-headed expectations, but the advocates who did.

*Which, in this case, do not include the French government, whose prediction that ejecting the Baathist regime would be easy, but installing a replacement would be a long and painful process dogged by insurgency, infighting between Kurd, Sunni & Shia, consitutional uncertainty, and an almost open-ended commitment of money, manpower & materiel by the invading forces - a pretty good summary of what' happened so far, no?

Is there a sense of perspective missing from our evaluation of the war in Iraq?
Yes, on all sides. The BIG missing for me in Hansen's article is that the majority expectation (by far in the USA, and by a whisker in the UK) was that our politicians were doing an unpleasant but desperatley necessary thing for the reasons that they told us they were.

And the biggest let-down in expectations, at least here in the UK, wasn't to do with how hard or bloody the reconstruction of Iraq would be, because (perhaps because of our different historical experience) we didn't expect it to be easy, short or bloodless.

No, the big disparity between expectation and delivery here has been in the honesty, probity (and if they are still intact, stupidity) of our political leaders. If a genuine military threat is levelled at the UK while Tony Blair is still Prime Minister, the British parliament and people will simply not believe him when he tells us about it until the bombs start falling.

Should we expect more? If so, on what basis?
Yes. We should expect our politicians not to lie to us, even if it's to make us feel better. They might believe that something is the right thing to do, but if they can't justify why without resorting to "because it was the right thing to do" (for which read "because I say so") - which is all Blair is left with now WMD have not only not been found but been shown to have been either rusted relics of the Iran-Iraq war or just plain not there to begin with - then they shouldn't expect anyone to support them.

Should we be content with our successes?

Like nighttimer said, contentment is for cows. Nobody ever learns anything from success, except to the same thing again next time. The trouble is, next time is never quite the same, so what worked once may not work again. (Anc vice versa)

But there's a wider problme here, I think, going beyond even security policy to the very core of Western electoral politics, especially in the Anglophone world.

We like conviction politics, we think, because they seem so certain, and certainty of purpose is atttractive in anyone. Periodically, we like them so much that we elect so many of them with particular convictions that such checks and balances as we have in our various political set-ups become weakened or (sometimes) completely suppressed.

The trouble is, nobody is always right about everything. Not in this world.

We have to continue to challenge and question our politicians, and we have to continue to expect them to do it of their leaders and opponents.

And we have to be deeply suspicious of ANYONE who says we have to do something (be it a war or a tax change or anything else) because "it's the right thing to do". If they can't justify based on concrete evidence (either to the electorate directly, or to state legislatures where national security is an issue), we shouldn't do it.

It's an extension of the old Socratic idea that "the unexamined life is not worth living" - the unexamined policy is not worth implementing.

I say this as someone who doesn't consider himself conservative at all, rather something of a radical. We should question even those things that seem to be working well, to check that they are responding to change and that they can't be improved in some way.

But, for me, the worst aspect of failed expectations in Iraq has been, and continues to be, that we haven't expected ourselves, and our politicians, to be able to justify our (and their) without being overly selective (which is natural enough, and probably tolerable if we have a vigorous enough debate), evasive and downright untruthful (which are also natural, but should no longer be tolerable IMO).

Just to support a point I made earlier, we have this from Paul Bremer.

CJ, you should know by now that using quotes from ex-administration officials has two problems:

1. Since Bremer is an ex-administration official, everything he says is inherently suspect. This is because he's trying to promote a book or other similar thing. Also, he's no longer in the "know" and wasn't part of secret meetings where Iraq policy was discussed. Or something like that...

AND

2. Since this is being reported by the liberal media, everything it reports is also inherently suspect. This is because the media "cherry-picks" those things that reflect badly on the current administration. Or something like that...

In short, the only news and sources used by the news which are viable are those views presenting efforts in Iraq in a positive light. Did I mention that reporting bad/negative news demoralizes the troops and thus is treasonous (also, I think killing puppies is somehow involved)?