Rumsfeld’s Revisionism

Commentary Magazine ^ | November 25, 2008 | Peter Wehner

[Valentine_W]

Yeah, but that wouldn’t have been very responsible of us to do...what’s your current outlook? What’s wrong? What are we doing right? Sorry if that’s a loaded question, but I’ve seen some of your other posts and I think you’d have some valuable insight.

[Zhang Fei]

If victory is defined as toppling Saddam and establishing a new government that would prevent the re-emergence of a Sunni Arab ruler patterned after Saddam, that was established a couple of years ago. As soon as the Shiites grabbed a firm hold of the Iraqi state's revenue streams, the Sunni Arabs had lost. If we had left then, there would have been a genocidal massacre of Sunni Arabs.

If victory is defined as keeping democracy alive, the odds are that Iraq will revert to form several years after we leave, if not immediately. The Sunni Arab party and dissident Shiite Arab factions in Iraq would be wise to agitate for the permanent stationing of American troops in Iraq as an honest broker, in case some Shiite Arab dictator-wannabe decides to make himself president-for-life. Obama has committed himself to a withdrawal in two years. Maliki seems - to me - to be angling for a president-for-life slot. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Iraq will revert to dictatorship after we leave. Is that our problem? As long as Iraq doesn't start sponsoring anti-American terrorists, no. Saddam was a terror sponsor, but he was a minor leaguer. I don't think Maliki would be any worse.

The real pity would be this - after 4,000 dead and $600b in expenditures, we end up with an Iraqi president for life. If this is the end state, it would almost have been better if we had not invaded Iraq. I say almost, because capturing Saddam was a worthwhile objective. The question is whether he was worth the price we paid.

[Valentine_W]

Thanks for the detailed post...I appreciate your insight.