Sometimes, it hurts to be right. Just ask the many skeptics of the Iraq war. In the face of fears of chemical weapons, and amid patriotic demands for action expressed everywhere from the White House, where President George W. Bush delivered his ultimatums, to suburban carports, where drivers pasted flag decals on their SUVs, some people dared to raise questions. For their courage, many were written off as troublemakers (Army General Eric Shinseki), egotists (French President Jacques Chirac), or myopic bureaucrats (United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix).
It’s surprising that, a decade later, so many of those who accurately predicted the convulsions set off by the war would still be regarded in that same light — as fundamentally off-center in their thinking. One might have assumed that having been proven right would have raised their standing. But not really. While then-backbenchers like Barack Obama, who wasn’t a national figure in 2003, were able to use their opposition to the war to build bases of support, many of those who were in the thick of the national debate are still tarred with disloyalty.
Comments
No doubt there were flaws in the Bush-era policy towards Iraq, the failure to anticipate the insurgency after the US invasion for example. But a terrible dictator was deposed and, after the success of the US surge, there was a chance to create a multi-ethnic democracy in the Middle East. The failure of the Obama administration to negotiate a reasonable withdrawal has put the US investment of lives and treasure in Iraq at serious risk.
And what of Chuck Hagel? He is an isolationist who fails to see that Israel is the only reliable ally that the US has in the Middle East. His remarks about an "Israel lobby" in the US Congress is a slander directed at those who wish to defend Israeli pluralism and democracy from Arab aggression. For a better analysis than this Globe editorial, please read Bret Stephens' column on Hagel and Colin Powell:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324734904578241561480345042.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
How about No. Korea? There's a terrible dictator there too, let's invade. What about the Al Saud kingdom, Good reason there to go in and remove an undemocratic dynasty. The US should not be led around by the nose by Israel. Palestinians have a legitimate beef, why deny it? Alliance with Israel has cost this country plenty, billions of dollars and ill will from neighboring countries. They shoud not be in the position of expecting carte blanche.
Go ask the people of Iraq if they're happy with what's gone on the past ten years. It's nice for us to say we were trying to bring democracy there but, based on what I've read and watched, it would seem that Iraquis don't feel they're better off today.
According to Martin Kramer, veteran Middle East scholar, Chuck Hagel has a very distorted view of what ails the Middle East. Do we want such a person to be our defense secretary?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chuck-hagel-and-linkage_695423.html?nopager=1
"There may be legitimate policy questions to ask of Hagel at his confirmation hearing — about his suggestions over the years to negotiate with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran — even though there is nothing toxic in his record on those matters" Globe, as per standard practice, provides no evidence of this. ..If the Globe editor says there is "nothing toxic" about somebody's record, then you can be more than 95% sure, that..There IS LOTS of TOXIC MATERIAL in that person's record. If Mr. Hagel were REALLY for stopping Iran's nuclear program, stopping Hamas and Hezbolla, and was staunchly Pro-Israel..the super Liberal Globe would loudly condemn him and DISQUALIFY him!
Amazingly cogent and incisive analysis! If the newspaper that you subscribe to says one thing, then believe the opposite. Thanks, Mike!
Hagel will continue to be attacked because he's a threat to the status quo. Being overtly aggressive, as we have been, requires massive defense spending. There's a lot of wealthy, powerful people, both inside and outside of government, who want this continue. Their fortunes are derived from it.
I give Hagel a lot of credit for his being able to forsee issues in Iraq but, quite frankly, only a very naive person would think that a democracy could exist where there had been warring factions for thousands of years. That's why dictatorships exist. Bush and his neocons pushed their agenda while blowing smoke up the butts of the American public. While some got rich because of the wars we're stuck with the massive debt that came from it.
Hopefully Hagel will overcome the efforts of those nitwit extremists who never served a day of their life in the military. We need a new vision for our military.
I agree. It's about time that we had a SOD who knows what it means when we send our young people into battle far from home for reasons that are difficult to associate with national defense.
would be a great sec of defense
Yes. he will be great for Mahmood Ahmadinijad and iran's Supreme leqader.
But Hagel is DEAD WRONG about IRAN. Iraq was yesterday's news. IRAN and its nukes and constant threats against Israel is TODAY's news and Tomorrows. The author is trying to divert attention from the REAL problem with Hagel as Secretary of Defense.