It is not necessary to recount in detail the timeline of changing justifications for the war in Iraq. That has been done. Recent events, however, demand an update--not because it is news to any of us but because it should change how we allow Republicans to debate foreign policy.
In the wake of new polling data showing Iraqis do not just want American soldiers to leave but to die, the new Republican line is, "We didn't go to war for the Iraqi people, we went there for us."
This was the
exchange between Russert and Sen. Dewine on Meet the Press this morning:
RUSSERT: Senator DeWine, if they want us out, and they're in favor of attacking us, why are we still there?
SEN. DeWINE: Tim, I was shocked by that as well. But you know, on reflection, this is their country. There's a lot of things going wrong. You blame someone who is there. Still does not change that we're not in Iraq primarily for the Iraqis. We're in Iraq for us. We're--have to do what we have to do, and it goes back to what the three generals--three military leaders said. It would be a total disaster for us to leave. It is in our self-interest, the interest to protect American families, that we are in Iraq. That's why we're there.
If that is why we are there, let us stop talking about the atrocities Saddam committed before the first Gulf War and before he was contained by sanctions and inspections. Let us stop claiming that Iraqis desire to be free--they do not. They want security, they want Islamic law, and they want us to leave.
The only remaining justification for the war in Iraq is the one claimed by the neo-cons for over a decade: if we impose our style of democracy on a nation in the Middle East, we can establish a pro-American foothold that will encourage other Middle Eastern nations to adopt the same pro-American reforms. This is the justification that should have been debated before we invaded. But it was not. Why? Because it was not the justification everyone could agree on and it was not a sufficient legal justification for an invasion.
Of course, "liberating the Iraqi people" would not have been a sufficient justification, either, but it sure sounds a lot better than "forcibly imposing our style of democracy on an unwilling populace for our own interests." The sad part about all of this is that such forcible imposition has resulted in a tremendous blow to our interests by hindering liberal reform throughout the Middle East and creating more terrorists.