Fred Hiatt wants us to take him seriously as he takes a look back at the Washington Post’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq. See, Mr. Hiatt is disappointed at the administration’s ‘breathtaking and infuriating arrogance, ignorance and insouciance‘. That’s kind of funny, because those are all the same faults that I see and find troubling with Fred Hiatt.
Let’s start out with that strange and multisyllabic word ‘insouciance’, which means ‘lighthearted unconcern’. I think that pretty well describes Hiatt’s take on the pre-war manipulations of intelligence by the Office of Special Plans, the White House Iraq Group, and their stenographers at the New York Times and Washington Post.
Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had “lied the nation into war,” as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed — as did the CIA — the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.
Think about that phrase: ‘the best postwar journalism’. Do you detect a little arrogance there? I do. If it isn’t arrogance, then it is certainly ignorance, but Mr. Hiatt is too well connected to be ignorant.
Of course, Hiatt pleads prewar ignorance on a host of issues. He didn’t know ‘the disadvantages of acting without full allied support’ or the ‘difficulty of seeding democracy in unaccustomed soil.’ But Hiatt doesn’t question the underlying conceit that allowed our country’s elites to rally around an invasion and occupation of a major Arab country.
…no American foreign policy will be supported at home or abroad if it does not include as one ambition the spread of freedom.
The spread of freedom? How about the spread of mayhem?
50% of Iraqis experienced the murder or kidnapping of a friend, family member or colleague.
The ‘spread of freedom’ was a fallback justification for the invasion of Iraq, after Ayatollah Sistani put the ixnay on the hombre Ahmed Chalabi. Our foreign policy ambitions have to be sincere, as well as broadly popular (at home and abroad). The Washington Post’s foreign policy is not only insincere, it is now totally discredited. Hiatt wants to discuss the lessons of the war, but what kind of lessons has he learned?
Unfortunately, none of this provides bright guidelines to make the next decisions easier — not even those facing the nation right now in Iraq. It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in.
Yes, that is tempting. We’ve presided over the death of 600,000 Iraqis and Mr. Hiatt is unable to find any ‘bright guidelines to make decisions’. I mean, things could get worse. But, that isn’t Hiatt’s main concern.
…how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.
So, we’re in for a few more Friedman Units. Why? Because our presence in Iraq ‘could still help Iraq’. Although there is absolutely nothing to indicate this that can be culled from the last four years, Mr. Hiatt sees no option but to stay the course. Here’s some better advice from, of all people, Donald Trump (warning: pdf).
BLITZER: How does the United States get out of this situation? Is there a way out?
TRUMP: You know how they get out? They get out. That’s how they get out. Declare victory and leave. Because I’ll tell you, this country is just going to get further bogged down. They’re in a civil war over there, Wolf. There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war.
They are in a major civil war, and it’s going to go to Iran, and it’s going to go to other countries. They are in the midst of a major
civil war, and there’s nothing — and by the way, we’re keeping the lid on, a little bit. But the day we leave anyway, it’s all going to blow up.
And Saddam Hussein will be a nice person, compared to the man — and it will be a man, it will not be a woman, that we understand. People say, Oh, gee, you didn’t give the women a chance — it will be a man.Compared to the person that takes over for Saddam Hussein, he will be considered a nice person. This guy will be the meanest, the worst guy, and he’ll have one thing — one thing — he will hate America, and he’ll use that to flame.
So, I mean, this is a total catastrophe, and you might as well get out now because you’re just wasting time, and lives. You know, nobody
talks about the soldiers that are coming back with no arms and no legs.
Mr. Trump has learned the lessons of Iraq. Mr. Hiatt has not.