The H-Word

It’s three years since the president’s victory speech on an aircraft carrier. I got a lot wrong back then and still trusted the president to make the right decisions in wartime. But something about that speech unnerved me, and for the first time, I used the H-word:

I agree with Glenn Reynolds that the whole backdrop, including the fighter-pilot entrance, was – how do I put this politely? – hubristic … It was an address to the nation at the conclusion of a conflict, one that shouldn’t be interrupted by foot-stomping and cheering. It made it look as if the president was using the military for partisan purposes – and that’s not right.

"Conclusion of a conflict"? If only I’d known. But a couple of weeks later, I was writing the following:

Iraq needs order. We’ll get criticized for being too heavy-handed whatever we do. So why aren’t American troops in large numbers being deployed to keep the peace, restore order and exercise credible authority? If we do not show our commitment now to the country, what message are we sending a future Iraqi government about our commitment to a stable and long-lasting democracy?

I fear we were sending the message Rumsfeld always intended to send: you’re on your own now. Rummy never wanted nation-building; and he feared that Iraq would disprove his theories about a smaller, more high-tech military. So he refused to budge. And we are where we now are.