Here’s a smart email:
In considering the retrospective debate which has emerged regarding the war in Iraq, the left and right of the Western political spectrum are obviously talking past each other. This stunted communication results from the inability of each side to simultaneously apprehend both the *substantive* and *procedural* elements of the war in Iraq and the events leading thereto. The anti-war left has proven to be comically ineffective in countering the basic point that the war has set the stage for an infinitely improved society in Iraq and has removed a dangerous and tyrannical despot. They stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the positive *substantive* result of the war.
On the other hand, the right has not been willing to recognize legitimate critiques of the *process* by which war was effectuated. The right generally will not respond to charges that the WMD threat was distorted, that the human rights justification only became a prominent one retrospectively, and that the Bush Administration’s bellicose tone in the international arena prevented the successful utilization of coalition forces in either the waging or aftermath of combat operations. Instead, they focus on the *substantive* success of the war, and pretend that the means by which these undoubtedly moral results were achieved matters not.
Here’s where I disagree. It seems to me that in retrospect, the WMD issue in Iraq was distorted, but it isn’t at all clear to me that this was deliberate. Virtually no one before the war actually agreed with Saddam that he had no WMDs (or had successfully put his program into cold storage). And the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove he didn’t have them, not on the West to prove he did. I also disagree with the notion that the human rights justification was only used retrospectively. In fact, Tony Blair made it his most forceful argument in the final weeks before the war. Re-reading my own case for war in Time last February, I see a mix of moral, strategic and WMD reasons for war. In fact it was the first reason I cited in the concluding paragraph for going to war. Those moral reasons for the war, combined with Saddam’s violation of umpteen U.N. resolutions, still stand. They will fail, however, if we do not see this through. Which is, of course, what the anti-war forces are now trying retroactively to achieve. (More feedback on the Letters Page.)
WHO RATTED ON BURNS? I asked this question a while back. In John F. Burns’ extraordinary indictment of the Western media’s fellatial relationship to Saddam, he actually claimed a fellow reporter printed up other reporters’ stories alongside his own and sent them to Saddam’s Ministry of Information to show what a good boy he was. It seems to me that this reporter should be exposed, and indeed the whole matter explored by the press. No one has followed up – surprise! – presumably because a) almost all the reporters opposed the liberation of Iraq and b) few were innocent of sucking up to Saddam. Jack Shafer has finally unloaded on this scandal that is being buried by the press corps. Jack writes: “I’m certain that the accused reporter’s readers would like to know his identity, and I’m fairly certain his editors would, too. I stop short of accusing Burns’ colleagues of silent complicity in a cover-up, but not by much.” I’m not stopping short at all. Will Saddam’s biggest suck-up please come forward?
The Dish 