[Mb-civic] MUST READ: The Phony War Against the Critics - Michael Kinsley - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

The Phony War Against the Critics

By Michael Kinsley
Friday, November 25, 2005; A37

"One might also argue," Vice President Cheney said in a speech on 
Monday, "that untruthful charges against the commander in chief have an 
insidious effect on the war effort." That would certainly be an ugly and 
demagogic argument, were one to make it. After all, if untruthful 
charges against the president hurt the war effort (by undermining public 
support and soldiers' morale), then those charges will hurt the war 
effort even more if they happen to be true. So one would be saying in 
effect that any criticism of the president is essentially treason.

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, 
"I'm unwilling to say that" -- "that" being what he had just said. He 
generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president 
this week). Then he resumed hurling adjectives like an ape hurling 
coconuts at unwanted visitors. "Dishonest." "Reprehensible." "Corrupt." 
"Shameless." President Bush and others joined in, all morally outraged 
that anyone would accuse the administration of misleading us into war by 
faking a belief that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and/or chemical 
and biological weapons.

Interestingly, the administration no longer claims that Hussein actually 
had such weapons at the time Bush led the country into war in order to 
eliminate them. "The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in 
hindsight," Cheney said on Monday. So-called WMD (weapons of mass 
destruction) were not the only argument for the war, but the 
administration thought they were a crucial argument at the time. So the 
administration now concedes that the country went to war on a false 
premise. Doesn't that mean that the war was a mistake no matter where 
the false premise came from?

Cheney and others insist that Bush couldn't possibly have misled anyone 
about WMD since everybody had assumed for years, back into the Clinton 
administration, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 
That's why any criticism of Bush on this point is corrupt, 
reprehensible, distasteful, odiferous, infectious and so on. But this 
indignation is belied by Cheney's own remarks in the 2000 election. In 
the vice presidential debate, for example, Cheney was happy to agree 
with Bush that Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass 
destruction would be a good enough reason to "take him out." But he did 
not assume that Hussein already had such weapons. And he certainly did 
not assume that this view was the general consensus. "We'll have to see 
if that happens," he said. "It's unfortunate we find ourselves in a 
position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside 
Iraq. I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability."

If you're looking for revisionist history, don't waste your time on the 
war's critics. Google up Cheney's bitter critique, in the 2000 campaign, 
of President Bill Clinton's military initiatives, specifically the need 
for more burden sharing by allies and a sharply defined "exit strategy." 
At the time, there were about 11,000 American troops in Bosnia and 
Kosovo, working alongside about 55,000 from allied countries. If only!

Until last week, the antiwar position in the debate over Iraq closely 
resembled the pro-war position in the ancient debate over Vietnam. That 
is: It was a mistake to get in, but now that we're in we can't just cut 
and run. That was the logic on which Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger 
took over the Vietnam War four years after major American involvement 
began and kept it going for another four. American "credibility" 
depended on our keeping our word, however foolish that word might have 
been. In the end, all the United States wanted was a "decent interval" 
between our departure and the North Vietnamese triumph -- and we didn't 
even get that. Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam after America's 
citizens and government were in general agreement that the war was a 
mistake.

We are now very close to that point of general agreement in the Iraq 
war. Do you believe that if Bush, Cheney and company could turn back the 
clock, they would do this again? And now, thanks to Rep. John Murtha, it 
is permissible to say, or at least to ask, "Why not just get out now? Or 
at least soon, on a fixed schedule?" There are arguments against this -- 
some good, some bad -- but the worst is the one delivered by Cheney and 
others with their most withering scorn. It is the argument that it is 
wrong to tell American soldiers risking their lives in a foreign desert 
that they are fighting for a mistake.

One strength of this argument is that it doesn't require defending the 
war itself. The logic applies equally whether the war is justified or 
not. Another strength is that the argument is true, in a way: It is a 
terrible thing to tell someone he or she is risking death in a mistaken 
cause. But it is more terrible actually to die in that mistaken cause.

The longer the war goes on, the more Americans, "allies" and Iraqis will 
die. That is not a slam-dunk argument for ending this foreign 
entanglement. But it is worth keeping in mind while you try to decide 
whether American credibility or Iraqi prosperity or Middle East 
stability can justify the cost in blood and treasure. And don't forget 
to factor in the likelihood that the war will actually produce these 
fine things.

The last man or woman to die in any war almost surely dies in vain: The 
outcome has been determined, if not certified. And he or she might die 
happier thinking that death came in a noble cause that will not be 
abandoned. But if it is not a noble cause, he or she might prefer not to 
die at all. Stifling criticism that might shorten the war is no favor to 
American soldiers. They can live without that kind of "respect."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/24/AR2005112400477.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051125/91176c35/attachment.htm