Suitably Flip

Bizarro 2007: The World Without a Dethroned, Deposed, Deceased Saddam Hussein

From WSJ's Opinion Journal:

Given the problems and U.S. casualties in Iraq, polls show a large majority of the American people believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Yet if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power.
...
So, while we are justifiably dismayed about what is happening today in Iraq, we should not allow this to obscure the central point--that the world is a better and safer place because Saddam is out of power.  Looked at this way, we have already achieved a lot; what remains now--as the president and John McCain have said--is to steady ourselves and see it through.

The "We'd be worse off with Saddam still in power" argument is sound and meaningful and, at this point, well enough worn that it's been rendered rhetorically hollow.  But the linked op-ed by Peter Wallison, entitled "What We Pre-Empted", steps through the hypothetical implications of this nightmarish "counter-factual" in logical and uncommonly visceral fashion.

Excerpted above is merely Wallison's hypothesis.  The "..." represents a 6-paragraph thought experiment about where the world would be, had the U.S. Congress not authorized the liberation of the Iraqi people.  It's worth a read.

There but by the grace of 71% of the House and Senate go we.

For those of you keeping score at home, the only top tier Presidential candidate with a Senatorial pedigree who either voted against the force authorization (or wasn't eligible to cast such a vote but claims he would have) is Barack Obama.  Despite their rhetoric, Hillary Clinton and John E'wards (now ruefully) cast the correct vote.  Obama must count himself lucky to be such a newbie that he wasn't around when our country recognized the grave global threat posed by Saddam Hussein and summoned the stoutheartedness to act.

That said, other than McCain, no GOP frontrunners carry Congressional pedigrees, so they're free to invent hypothetical retroactive votes Obama-style.  But since Rudy, Mitt, and Fred remain avowed supporters of our mission in Iraq, these other A-list Republican contenders have no motive to wax dovishly nuanced in reaction to waning public support for the war.  As such, they offer no dissonance between their voting records and their current war stances.

Thus, as the singularly pseudo-credible original war opposer among the frontrunners, Obama finds himself alone in the improbably lauded position of favoring Wallison's hypothetical dystopia.

Comments

Bizarro 2007: The World Without a Dethroned, Deposed, Deceased Saddam Hussein

From WSJ's Opinion Journal:

Given the problems and U.S. casualties in Iraq, polls show a large majority of the American people believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Yet if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power.
...
So, while we are justifiably dismayed about what is happening today in Iraq, we should not allow this to obscure the central point--that the world is a better and safer place because Saddam is out of power.  Looked at this way, we have already achieved a lot; what remains now--as the president and John McCain have said--is to steady ourselves and see it through.

The "We'd be worse off with Saddam still in power" argument is sound and meaningful and, at this point, well enough worn that it's been rendered rhetorically hollow.  But the linked op-ed by Peter Wallison, entitled "What We Pre-Empted", steps through the hypothetical implications of this nightmarish "counter-factual" in logical and uncommonly visceral fashion.

Excerpted above is merely Wallison's hypothesis.  The "..." represents a 6-paragraph thought experiment about where the world would be, had the U.S. Congress not authorized the liberation of the Iraqi people.  It's worth a read.

There but by the grace of 71% of the House and Senate go we.

For those of you keeping score at home, the only top tier Presidential candidate with a Senatorial pedigree who either voted against the force authorization (or wasn't eligible to cast such a vote but claims he would have) is Barack Obama.  Despite their rhetoric, Hillary Clinton and John E'wards (now ruefully) cast the correct vote.  Obama must count himself lucky to be such a newbie that he wasn't around when our country recognized the grave global threat posed by Saddam Hussein and summoned the stoutheartedness to act.

That said, other than McCain, no GOP frontrunners carry Congressional pedigrees, so they're free to invent hypothetical retroactive votes Obama-style.  But since Rudy, Mitt, and Fred remain avowed supporters of our mission in Iraq, these other A-list Republican contenders have no motive to wax dovishly nuanced in reaction to waning public support for the war.  As such, they offer no dissonance between their voting records and their current war stances.

Thus, as the singularly pseudo-credible original war opposer among the frontrunners, Obama finds himself alone in the improbably lauded position of favoring Wallison's hypothetical dystopia.