Ace of Spades HQ

« Don't Know If I Get This... | Main | Wonder if Sullivan Will Quote This Bremer Statement »

October 08, 2004

Missing From Andrew Sullivan's Critiques: "I Was Wrong"

In the run-up to the war, there were in fact a number of reasonable, and yet partisan, Democrat war-supporters who advocated for the removal of Saddam Hussein while simultaneously blasting Bush for agitating to do so. They didn't object to Bush's plan to oust Saddam in principle; no, it was always this detail or that they found wanting.

They were quite transparent about the fact that they thought war was the right policy and yet, being partisan Democrats, they needed Bush to be wrong in every detail of that policy. They had to slice the salami pretty thin to make the case that Bush lied, and yet people under Saddam died.

Andrew Sullivan has of course long since joined the ranks of partisan Democrats against Bush. And he has been particularly blatant about criticising every single aspect of the war -- its justification, its theory, its execution -- without ever really acknowleging any personal fault. He makes a quasi-Kerry case against the war -- not enough trooops, "arrogance," not enough allies, general incompetence -- but he's very careful to avoid any suggestion that he, personally, was wrong about any of this.

The argument that "Bush made mistakes in the conduct of the war" only gets one so far. Bush has, of course, made mistakes in conducting the war, which is to be expected and also to be noted for the historical and political records. But the biggest "mistakes" of the war -- and I do think they were mistakes -- were mistakes that Andrew Sullivan is equally guilty of. And yet no clear expression of sorrow for his own mistakes, even while catigating Bush for his failure to apologize.

Liberal proponents of the war -- a category which must contain Andrew Sullivan -- were especially keen on the Wilsonian, "people want to be free"/"they will greet us as liberators" type of arguments for the war. Sullivan was especially strident and, to be fair, sometimes quite eloquent addressing this point. Now, the Bush Administration was/is also a big proponent of this neo-Wilsonianism-- and it is certainly fair at this point to wonder about the naivete of the pure Wilsonian position.

FWIW, I was also a believer, despite my reservations, in the Wilsonian justification for war; to the extent this justification is wrong, so was I. I'm not certain this position is wrong, although I have to say the evidence thusfar suggests that perhaps it was. But I'll say this: If it does turn out to be wrong, then I personally was wrong, and I can't blame Bush for "misleading" me or for botching the conduct of the war. If the idea that Iraqis actually want to be free, more-or-less democratic citizens of a modern, normal state, and will take steps to make that come to pass, turns out to be a wrong idea, then I was entirely wrong about that assumption.

Bush was wrong, yes. Wolfowitz was wrong, certainly. But I was wrong too, independently of either man. I cannot pass off my own error (if it is in fact error) on the "misleading" statements of Bush or the decision to fire the standing Iraqi army. If this key assumption, criticial to the path to success in Iraq, turns out to be wrong, then I turned out to be wrong, too.

And, of course, Sullivan would be quite wrong too-- enormously wrong, since so much of his passionate prose was dedicated to the idea that Iraqis craved a better, more decent nation. But note that Sullivan doesn't seem eager to examine this key assumption This assumption was either right or wrong from the get-go; it's hard to argue that some error of Bush's caused this assumption to go from true to false over the course of a year.

Sullivan neatly avoids any reconsideration of, or even any discussion of, the areas in which he may be a "failure" in this business. This seems strange. Sullivan is forever praising himself as an "independent," and someone courageous enough to challenge conventional thinking (and suffer the associated "heart-ache," of course).

And yet, for all his, ahem, intellectual courage, he seems to conveniently avoid scrutinizing his own possibly-erroneous contributions to the case for war. With all due respect, I suppose it does take some degree of intellectual courage to challenge a like-minded partisan. It takes very little courage at all to challenge someone to whom you're strongly politically opposed (as Sullivan is strongly politically opposed to Bush, and has been for some time).

The real test of intellectual courage and intellectual honesty is to unflinchingly examine one's own failings. One cannot simply attack a political opponents in a conveniently-partisan manner and be considered a serious and thoughtful analysis; if one could, I'd be considered such a serious thinker, which I'm not.

One of these days Andrew Sullivan will examine his own error in making the case for Saddam's possession of, and desire to use, WMD's; of the various claims that the Iraq War would be just as easy as the Gulf War (or Afghanistan); of the belief that he great majority of Iraqis would not only welcome a regime change (even a violent one) but would gladly take up arms side by side with our troops in order to accomplish it.

But until he says three simple words -- "I was wrong" -- I think it's entirely appropriate to dismiss him as a partisan hack on this issue, no more serious about analyzing what went wrong in the war than Howard Dean.

Or, for that matter, John Kerry.

posted by Ace at 09:24 AM

Comments

> If the idea that Iraqis actually want to be free, more-or-less democratic citizens of a modern, normal state, and will take steps to make that come to pass, turns out to be a wrong idea

Is there a lot of evidence to suggest that this was probably a wrong idea? My impression was that the unrest in Iraq is limited to a few specific areas, and that the Iraqis have plenty of people willing to serve as policemen and soldiers. But I could just be a dupe of the "Righty Wurlitzer"...

Posted by: DimPenumbra on October 8, 2004 10:04 AM

It becomes abundantly clear just how difficult it can be to devise an 'objective' analysis of events when coming from a wholly sphincter-centric world view

Posted by: recon on October 8, 2004 10:07 AM

Ace, your entire post was gob-smackingly vile.

Posted by: Josh Martin on October 8, 2004 10:22 AM

"to unflinchingly examine one's own failings. "

This is something I've noticed. Many on the Left will never acceed to this doctrine. And why should they? They'd turn into a bunch of hand-wringing Republicans who, even when they have the majority, act like a victimized minority.

We on the Right are concerned with what is right, whether it agrees with our digestive system or not. It's a Camelot thing, and the Mordreds of our conscience on the Left hold up the hypocricy card as a trump. The Right caves, every time.

A world of perfect choices does not exist, and only the Left has learned how to maliciously twist every good thing. Nothing is good enough, no good deed ever solves enough of the problem, no good will ever makes everyone play nice...ad nauseum. You can predict the next line of ever MSM nightly newscast. If it's good, they ALWAYS point out that, while it's good, it's not enough.

The Left and the MSM have become the predictable party of IT'S NOT ENOUGH. Their almost cult-like demand for perfection, perfect morality, perfect motives, perfect execution of the details is the most oppressive religion I've ever had to live under. That's saying a lot, being raised in the strict Roman Catholic tradition.

I'm through with apologizing for not having perfect answers. I know my own heart, and I'll examine my own conscience. I'm just going to do my best, make my best choices, take my best shot, and live with the consequences and responsibility. It won't be perfect, but it'll be free.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! on October 8, 2004 10:36 AM

Sulllivan is a truly sad creature...his existance seems to be centered on one lifestyle issue. What a waste of talent. I removed his bookmark many months ago.

Posted by: The Old Coot on October 8, 2004 11:10 AM

But, but, but - that's the very definition of nuance - never having to say you're wrong, or sorry!

Posted by: Rocketeer on October 8, 2004 11:26 AM

Ace - don't doubt the "neo-Wilsonian" argument (scare quotes, not quote quotes) - freedom is always the right answer, people do always yearn for it.

There have been problems with the implementation of the war in Iraq - always will be, I guess. Bremer's original statement, now kinda sorted retracted/re-explained, is more in line with Sullivan's critique - see, even Bremer says there weren't enough troops.

However, it misses the inter-agency blame game that is going on. Bremer nominally worked for DoD but is a creature of State. I know a lot of soldier types who think Bremer and the CPA didn't know what the hell they were doing. So Bremer says he doesn't have this big trophy because someone else screwed the pooch. And the DoD guys say the same thing.

But the blame game is indicative of the fact that Iraq is not a huge, inarguable success. If it were, then they'd both be trying to take credit, instead of shift blame.

However, that it isn't a huge, inarguable success is not a sign that its a failure, or a sign that it won't in the future be viewed as such a success.

Remember, Kerry in the debate the other night was prding himself on being in the mold of Ronald Reagan in Latin America, for Chrissakes!

Certainly that isn't where he was when he was elected to the Senate in 1984. But it is where he is, 20 years later.

Remember, everyone is an anti-Communist now.

Posted by: blaster on October 8, 2004 12:03 PM

Good post. It strikes me that, at least on the WMD issue, I was wrong. Based on the evidence I saw, I believed in stockpiles. I do not believe I was lied to, any more than I believe that I lied when I talked to others about my beliefs.
When the President is attacked by the left about lying to the country about WMDs, I feel that I am also being called a liar. Sometimes I wonder if they really understand what a lie is. Oh well.

Posted by: blakjack on October 8, 2004 01:28 PM

What amazes me is the Eurocentrism (or perhaps racism) of the Left in this matter. It's like they're saying the rest of the world isn't good enough for democracy. Yet, that argument would've been made about Japan in 1942 (to select a random year) and has proven false. Isn't it funny that the Right claims not to care a whit about race and even its foreign policy reflects that fact? The left? Not so much.

Of course, I question whether continental Europe is ready for democracy. So far they've not been able to get past socialism. Perhaps Mr. Sullivan will explain that to me.

Posted by: Birkel on October 8, 2004 01:34 PM

Here's a statement I'd like to see Bush make about WMDs and Iraq, and completely turn it around on Kerry:

"The WMDs that the world intelligence agencies expected to find in Iraq are not there. But the millions of refugees, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, tens of thousands of American and coalition partner casualties that many predicted have not been there either.

The naysayers were wrong before the war, and they are still wrong. They painted horrorific visions of Iraq then, and they continue today. They have always assumed the worst about America, our intentions and our abilities; and they are still wrong today.

Cynicism and pessimism are not strategies for success. My critics tried to mislead the American public before the war about what would happen if we invaded, and my opponents are trying to mislead the American public about what is happening on the ground today.

[Insert any number of anecdotes about the upcoming elections, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. here]

Given the choice between believing in what America is capable of and believing the worst, I will choose in believing in our brave soldiers and the strength of America every time. It's too bad my opponents are unwilling to do the same."

Posted by: Jim B on October 8, 2004 01:56 PM

Liberal proponents of the war -- a category which must contain Andrew Sullivan

Andrew Sullivan touts a pro-abortion, anti-tax cuts, anti-defense sock puppet of Ted "Water Wings" Kennedy as being "more genuinely conservative than George W. Bush," in the course of his increasingly intellectually dishonest ravings.

At this point, "AndrewSullivan.com" is no longer a political blog; it's a fan fiction site.

Posted by: Kent on October 8, 2004 04:25 PM

I was wrong.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan on October 10, 2004 10:09 PM

Amazon.com Widgets

Now Available!
The Deplorable Gourmet
A Horde-sourced Cookbook
[All profits go to charity]

Top Headlines

Ryan Long goes to the No Kings rally to pick up young liberal hotties and is greatly disappointed in the quality of the mish
thanks to stevey

You know we "joke" about the GOPe just "conserving" leftist things?
David French just posted:

Populists ask what conservativism has ever conserved?
Well its about to conserve birthright citizenship!
Posted by: 18-1

I couldn't hate this queen of the cuck-chair more if it paid seven figures and came with a corner office.

TJM definitively ranks the films of John Boorman.

Kid punks CNN chump by speaking truth to retard

Podcast: CBD and Sefton talk birthright citizenship, the 14th Amendment and SCOTUS, no boots in Iran, Artemis II and refocusing NASA, the NBA's hatred of everything non-woke, and more!

In more marketing for Project Hail Mary, scientists say they've found the biosigns indicating life growing on an alien planet. It's not proof, just signatures of chemicals that are produced by biological metabolism, and it could be nothing, but scientists think it's a strong sign that this planet is inhabited by something.

In a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, a team of scientists announced the detection of dimethyl sulfide (along with a similar detection of dimethyl disulfide) in the atmosphere of an exoplanet called K2-18b. This is actually the second detection of dimethyl sulfide made on this planet, following a tentative detection in 2023.
Tons of chemicals are detected in the atmospheres of celestial objects every day. But dimethyl sulfide is different, because on Earth, it's only produced by living organisms.
"It is a shock to the system," Nikku Madhusudhan, first author on the paper, told the New York Times. "We spent an enormous amount of time just trying to get rid of the signal."

He means they tried to prove the signal was caused by things other than dimethyl sulfide but they could not.

Artemis moon shot a go, scheduled for 6:24 Eastern time tonight
Great marketing arranged by Amazon to promote Project Hail Mary. Okay not really but it does work out that way.

TJM talks John Boorman, director of Excalibur

Good rickroll

What? Skeleton of the most famous Musketeer, D'Artagnan, possibly discovered in Dutch church closet.
Dumas picked four names of real musketeers out of a history book, D'Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. So there was an actual D'Artagnan, though he made most of the story up. (Or, you know, all of it.)*

Charles de Batz de Castelmore, known as d'Artagnan, the famous musketeer of Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV, spent his life in the service of the French crown.
The Gascon nobleman inspired Alexandre Dumas's hero in "The Three Musketeers" in the 19th century, a character now known worldwide thanks to the novel and numerous film adaptations.
D'Artagnan was killed during the siege of Maastricht in 1673, and there is a statue honoring the musketeer in the city. His final resting place has remained a mystery ever since.

A lot of Dumas's stories are based on bits of real history. The plot of the >Three Musketeers, about trying to recover lost diamonds from the queen's necklace, was cribbed from the then-almost-contemporaneous Affair of the Queen's Necklace. And the Man in the Iron Mask is based on real accounts of a prisoner forced to wear a mask (though I think it was a velvet mask).
* Oh, I should mention, Dumas says all this, about finding the names in an old book, in the prologue to his novel. But authors lie a lot. They frequently present fictions as based on historic fact. The twist is, he was actually telling the truth here. At least about these four musketeers having actually existed and served under Louis XIV.
Fun fact: You know the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars where the local gunslingers make fun of Clint Eastwood's donkey and Eastwood demands they apologize to the donkey? That's lifted from The Three Musketeers. Rochefort mocks D'Artagnan's old, brokedown farm horse and D'Artagnan is incensed.

A commenter asked which should be read first, The Hobbit of LOTR?
Easy, no question -- read The Hobbit first. It's actually the start of the story and comes first chronologically. It sets up some major characters and major pieces in play in LOTR.
Also, the Hobbit is Beginner-Friendly, which LOTR isn't. The Hobbit really is a delightful book, and a fast read. It's chatty, it's casual, it's exciting, and it's funny. In that dry cheeky British humor way. I love that the narrator is constantly making little asides and commentary, like he's just sitting next to you telling you this story as it occurs to him.
LOTR is a very long story. Fifteen hundred pages or so. The Hobbit is relatively short and very punchy and easy to read. If you don't like The Hobbit, you can skip out on LOTR. If you do like it, you'll be primed to read LOTR.
Oh, I should say: The Hobbit is written as if it's for children, but one of those smart children's stories that are also for adults. Don't worry, there's also real fighting and violence and horror in it, too.
LOTR is written for adults. (It's said that Tolkien wrote both for his children, but LOTR was written 17 years later, when his children were adults.) Some might not like The Hobbit due to its sometimes frivolous tone. Me, I love it. I find it constantly amusing. Both are really good but there is a starkly different tone to both. LOTR is epic, grand, and serious, about a world war, The Hobbit is light and breezy, and about a heist. Though a heist that culminates in a war for the spoils.

The Hobbit Challenge: Read two more chapters. I didn't have much time. Bilbo got the ring.
I noticed a continuity problem. Maybe. Now, as of the time of The Hobbit, it was unknown that this magic ring was in fact a Ring of Power, and it was doubly unknown that it was the Ring of Power, the Master Ring that controlled the others.
But the narrator -- who we will learn in LOTR was none of than Bilbo himself, who wrote the book as "There and Back Again" -- says this about Gollum's ring:
"But who knows how Gollum had come by that present [the Ring], ages ago in the old days when such rings were still at large in the world? Perhaps even the Master who ruled them could not have said."
In another passage, the ring is identified as a "ring of power."
I don't know, I always thought there was a distinction between mere magic rings and the Rings of Power created by Sauron. But this suggests that Bilbo knew this was a ring of power created by Sauron.
Now I don't remember when Bilbo wrote the Hobbit. In the movie, he shows Frodo the book in Rivendell, and I guess he wrote it after he left the Shire. I guess he might have added in the part about the ring being a ring of power created by "the Master" after Gandalf appraised him of his research into the ring.
I never noticed this before. I know Tolkien re-wrote this chapter while he was writing LOTR to make the ring important from the start. And also to make Gollum more sinister and evil, and also to remove the part where Gollum actually offers Bilbo the ring as a "present" -- Bilbo had already found it on his own, but Gollum was wiling to give it away, which obviously is not something the rewritten Gollum would ever do.
But I had no memory of the ring being suggested to be The Ring so early in the tale.

Finish the job, Mr. President!
Melanie Phillips lays out the case for the total destruction of the Iranian government and armed forces. [CBD]

TJM acts like he knows anything about John Wick and screenwriting. It's embarrassing, really.

Podcast: Sefton and CBD talk about how would a peace treaty with Iran work, Democrats defending murderers and rapists, The GOP vs. Dem bench for 2028, composting bodies? And more!

Oh, I forgot to mention this quote from Pete Hegseth, reported by Roger Kimball: "We are sharing the ocean with the Iranian Navy. We're giving them the bottom half."

Batman fires The Batman
Batman is disgusted by the Joachim Phoenix version of Joker
Batman tries to fire Superman
Batman is still workshopping his Bat-Voice

Forgotten 80s Mystery Click: Red Leather Suit and Sweatband Edition
And I was here to please
I'm even on knees
Makin' love to whoever I please
I gotta do it my way
Or no way at all

Tomorrow is March 25th, "Tolkien Reading Day," because March 25th is the day when the Ring is destroyed in the book. I think I'm going to start the Hobbit tomorrow and read all four books this time.
The only bad part of the trilogy are the Frodo/Sam chapters in The Two Towers. They're repetitive, slow, and mostly about the weather and terrain. But most everything else is good. Weirdly, the Frodo-Sam chapters in Return of the King are exciting and action-packed and among the best in the trilogy. (Though the chapters with everyone else in Return of the King get pretty slow again. Mostly people talking about marching towards war, and then marching towards war.)

Sec. Army recognizes ODU Army ROTC cadets for their bravery and sacrifice in private ceremony
[Hat Tip: Diogenes] [CBD]