Tuesday, October 23 , 2018, 11:34 am | Fair 67º

 
 
 
 

Michael Barone: Specter of Iraq Hovers Over Syria Deliberation

Hovering over the congressional debate on whether to authorize the use of military force in Syria is the specter of Iraq.

It hung even more menacingly over the debate in the British House of Commons Aug. 29 when a 285-272 majority voted against granting the government such authority.

The prevalent idea is that America and Britain were maneuvered into the Iraq War by false intelligence. "Bush lied. People died," Democrats liked to say. Brits denounced Tony Blair's "dodgy dossier."

I disagree.

Yes, both American and British intelligence estimated with high confidence that Saddam Hussein had active weapons of mass destruction. And, yes, after Saddam's downfall coalition forces did not find caches of nuclear or biological weapons, though some evidence of chemical weapons were found.

But intelligence is inevitably an inexact science. And there was strong circumstantial evidence to believe that Saddam was seeking WMDs.

He had, after all, developed and used chemical weapons against his own people in the 1980s. After the Gulf War in 1991, coalition forces found that he had a nuclear weapons program and it was more advanced than had been estimated.

Then between 1991 and 2002, he continually resisted and frustrated international inspection efforts. The obvious conclusion was that he had something to hide.

So back in 2002, no responsible leader could have concluded with certainty that Saddam was not developing WMDs again.

That did not necessarily mean leaders had to support military action. Rational arguments against that were made in the U.S. Congress and the British Parliament.

Military action is always risky, but a reasonable person could conclude it was riskier to leave Saddam in power. That doesn't mean that President George W. Bush and Blair lied about the intelligence.

How did the idea that we were lied into war become so widely accepted?

One reason is that in America Democrats adopted it as gospel. Many of them regarded Bush's election as illegitimate, even though every newspaper recount still showed him ahead, barely, in Florida.

Democrats also deeply resented Bush's insistence on a vote on the Iraq War resolution in October 2002, a month before the midterm election and at a time when support for military action was about 70 percent in polls.

That put Democratic officeholders in the position of antagonizing either their antiwar party base or the majority of voters. Democratic leaders such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry and (remember him?) John Edwards chose to go with majority opinion — and came to rue it when unknown antiwar candidates such as Howard Dean and, later, Barack Obama shot upward in presidential primary polls.

So when things in Iraq started to go badly, they were happy to suggest that they had been deceived into voting for war by an increasingly less popular president.

Another reason for the strength of the "Bush lied" meme is that Bush and his appointees did not effectively defend themselves against the charge.

Bush's press secretary repudiated the "16 words" in a Bush speech that simply recited a British intelligence conclusion, which the Brits never withdrew. And the Bush people did not push back on the ridiculous claim by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that he had proved Saddam's regime never sought WMD materials in Africa.

Nor was Team Bush successful in refuting the charge that it had violated espionage law by revealing the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The press took up the charge with glee and the administration official who could have refuted it, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, chose to stay mum.

In the current debate on Syria, some lawmakers, notably Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, have expressed skepticism about intelligence conclusions that Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons.

They point to the unlikely possibility that Assad opponents could have done so and demand the kind of evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that is rightly required in domestic criminal trials. But it's obviously impossible to provide such evidence in a war zone like Syria.

In foreign affairs, decision-makers must act on imperfect information and on the basis of probabilities. They must keep in mind a lesson taught by history, that the course of military action is always unpredictable and subject to sudden reversal.

There are serious arguments for and against authorizing military action in Syria. The argument that the allies were lied into war in Iraq is not one of them.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him, follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made using a credit card, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Email
Select your monthly membership
Or choose an annual membership
×

Payment Information

Membership Subscription

You are enrolling in . Thank you for joining the Hawks Club.

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.
You may cancel your membership at any time by sending an email to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.