The Corner

Looking Back at the Iraq Debate

David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute takes a victory lap over Iraq: “Maybe they should have listened to the Cato Institute back in 2001 and 2002.” Fair enough: The bottom-line conclusion of most Cato folks, that we should not take military action against the Iraqi regime, has looked better and better over time. It’s worth noting, though, how differently things went in Iraq than anyone on either side of the pre-war debate had predicted. The mainstream opposition to the war accepted the supporters’ premise — the premise of all the intelligence services — about the regime’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Here’s how that 2002 paper’s executive summary ends: “If [Saddam] Hussein believes that his political survival is being threatened, and there is nothing he can do about it, he may respond in a dangerous and unpredictable manner—with weapons of mass destruction.”

Much of the paper discusses how the regime’s use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons could be deterred. The paper does include a paragraph about how hard it would be to stabilize Iraq after toppling the regime, but when talking about the costs of an invasion it mostly stresses how hard the regime would resist. The danger that the state would very quickly disintegrate wasn’t mentioned. That’s not a terrible indictment of the paper or Cato — basically nobody foresaw what happened, and as I mentioned there’s a lot to be said for the paper’s conclusion. The lesson we should take, though, isn’t that most opponents of the war were far-sighted so much as that wars are unpredictable, which is a good reason to be very cautious about starting them.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More