Over the weekend, protesters around the world gathered to mark the one-year anniversary of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. What lessons have we learned in the past 365 days from the preemptive, first-strike policy otherwise known as the Bush Doctrine? There are at least four overarching principles that cannot be ignored.
Lesson One: Retroactive reasoning is a poor substitute for the failure to find WMD
On the heels of 9/11 this war was about Iraq's WMD and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. In justifying the war retroactively, however, the president recently said: "Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?"
The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. There is simply no way to rationalize his brutality. But it is revisionist history to suggest the liberation of the Iraqi people was a primary objective for war.
One year ago, the case was made that Saddam was a Hitler whose removal required a Churchillian effort. Reality suggests he was nothing more than a toothless tiger possessing none of the weapons of mass destruction that the administration painstakingly exaggerated in order to sell the war. Time has proven the president's primary reasoning for war to be unsubstantiated.
The liberation of the Iraqi people alone, while valid, would not have enlisted the support of the American people. The most recent Annenberg survey shows that only 46 percent of Americans surveyed still believe the war against Iraq was worth it compared to 49 percent that now believe otherwise.
Lesson Two: One cannot simultaneously lead and mislead.
The most ardent supporter of the president's policies would be hard pressed to deny the loss of global credibility in the past year. The manipulation and exaggeration of the intelligence, along with the recent Spanish elections, bear witness to this fact.
Supporters of the president want to label the Socialist Party's recent victory as a supreme act of appeasement, thus a victory for al Qaeda. However, a majority of Spaniards believed the incumbent Popular Party provoked the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which a large majority of Spaniards opposed.
In addition to incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's vehement disapproval of the war, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski also said last week he felt "misled" about the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- and now has reservations about his country's participation.
On the News Hour, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recalled how President Kennedy dispatched Dean Acheson to Paris to brief Charles De Gaulle about the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Acheson proceeded to show the evidence supporting his claim, De Gaulle made it clear that nothing further was required; the word of the president was enough. Could anyone imagine President Bush being granted such carte blanche today?
Lesson Three: Martin Luther King was right
The administration's "you are either with us or against us" unilateral rhetoric is trumped by the need to embrace Martin King's belief that "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny."
Shouldn't we question the idiom "win the war on terror"? It sounds good, but what does it really mean? Will victory come with George Bush and Osama bin Laden meeting on the USS Abraham Lincoln to sign al Qaeda's unconditional surrender?
The best that we can hope for is to contain terror. As long as there are regions of the world plagued by a sense of hopelessness, and demagogues willing to fill a perceived need, there will be terrorism. But even a victory through containment can only be achieved through a sustained cooperative global effort.
On balance we are no safer. We have increased the number of our global enemies, and we are more isolated because of an international feeling of mistrust from our traditional allies. Machiavelli warned against one going to the full extent of their authority, because such actions can only be done once. This leads us to the final lesson learned:
One year later, Iraq is not the only country desperately in need of regime change.
Byron Williams.
Lesson One: Retroactive reasoning is a poor substitute for the failure to find WMD
On the heels of 9/11 this war was about Iraq's WMD and Saddam's links to al Qaeda. In justifying the war retroactively, however, the president recently said: "Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?"
The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. There is simply no way to rationalize his brutality. But it is revisionist history to suggest the liberation of the Iraqi people was a primary objective for war.
One year ago, the case was made that Saddam was a Hitler whose removal required a Churchillian effort. Reality suggests he was nothing more than a toothless tiger possessing none of the weapons of mass destruction that the administration painstakingly exaggerated in order to sell the war. Time has proven the president's primary reasoning for war to be unsubstantiated.
The liberation of the Iraqi people alone, while valid, would not have enlisted the support of the American people. The most recent Annenberg survey shows that only 46 percent of Americans surveyed still believe the war against Iraq was worth it compared to 49 percent that now believe otherwise.
Lesson Two: One cannot simultaneously lead and mislead.
The most ardent supporter of the president's policies would be hard pressed to deny the loss of global credibility in the past year. The manipulation and exaggeration of the intelligence, along with the recent Spanish elections, bear witness to this fact.
Supporters of the president want to label the Socialist Party's recent victory as a supreme act of appeasement, thus a victory for al Qaeda. However, a majority of Spaniards believed the incumbent Popular Party provoked the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which a large majority of Spaniards opposed.
In addition to incoming Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's vehement disapproval of the war, Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski also said last week he felt "misled" about the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- and now has reservations about his country's participation.
On the News Hour, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recalled how President Kennedy dispatched Dean Acheson to Paris to brief Charles De Gaulle about the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Acheson proceeded to show the evidence supporting his claim, De Gaulle made it clear that nothing further was required; the word of the president was enough. Could anyone imagine President Bush being granted such carte blanche today?
Lesson Three: Martin Luther King was right
The administration's "you are either with us or against us" unilateral rhetoric is trumped by the need to embrace Martin King's belief that "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny."
Shouldn't we question the idiom "win the war on terror"? It sounds good, but what does it really mean? Will victory come with George Bush and Osama bin Laden meeting on the USS Abraham Lincoln to sign al Qaeda's unconditional surrender?
The best that we can hope for is to contain terror. As long as there are regions of the world plagued by a sense of hopelessness, and demagogues willing to fill a perceived need, there will be terrorism. But even a victory through containment can only be achieved through a sustained cooperative global effort.
On balance we are no safer. We have increased the number of our global enemies, and we are more isolated because of an international feeling of mistrust from our traditional allies. Machiavelli warned against one going to the full extent of their authority, because such actions can only be done once. This leads us to the final lesson learned:
One year later, Iraq is not the only country desperately in need of regime change.
Byron Williams.
