Post-War Columnists: Anti-War
Return to P.S. FAQs

Also see "Pro-War Columnists" , "Wavering Columnists", and Pre-war columnists against war.

On Democracy in Iraq, Steve Chapman commentary in the Chicago Tribune included "False hopes and real dangers in Iraq" (3/4/2004).

Chapman, a strong critic of the war before it began, wrote, "The bad news is that even the good news isn't all that good."  He concludes, "Even Bush administration officials confide that the violence is likely to get worse between now and June 30.  The administration hopes that the tough part of our job will be over once someone else is in charge.  But our troops won't be any safer just because Americans are no longer running Iraq.  Without either an occupying authority or a popularly accepted Iraqi government, Iraq could suffer a power vacuum that violent groups will be eager to fill. It's a recipe for anarchy, of which Iraqis are already getting glimpse.  And Americans will be right in the middle of it."

The Chicago Tribune columnist opened 2005 with his summary analysis of the military picture (1/6/04). Seeing the future as less than positive, Chapman reviewed some statistics:  "Last year, the mightiest and most proficient army in history found itself in the middle of its most formidable challenge since Vietnam.  Some 150,000 troops have been given the implausible task of bringing peace and order to a  country that is engulfed in violence, even as they try to win over a populace that generally views them with suspicion or history.  The job is only getting tougher, with attacks on American forces rising from 1400 in September to nearly 2000 in November:  This week, the head of Iraq's intelligence agency said the number of insurgents has grown far beyond the 20,000 previously estimated...Whatever the precise number of rebels, they are inflicting more casualties," nearly three American deaths every day since August and 10,000 total wounded.  "And the wounds are often more sever than in past war, since modern medicine has saved victims whose injuries once would have been fatal."

Chapman asks, "How long will it be before unreasonable demands provoke resistance in the ranks.  Actually, its' already happening.  At least eight solders have sued to override stop-loss orders...Re-enlistment rates have fallen."  He concludes, "We might have avoided this crisis had we expanded the military before the invasion, or if the administration had not blundered so badly in the ensuing occupation.  But it's too late now.  Someone has to pay dearly for those mistakes, and it's not the people who made them."

Chapman's June 2 contribution to the Tribune worried about the numbers killed and the lack of a US strategy.  He noted that 22 Iraqis were killed every day in May  "Everything that should be rising is falling, and everything that should be falling is rising.  Fatalities from car bombings and suicide bombings have soared fivefold since November.  Attacks on US forces have been running at 70 a day, double the rate in March and April  Iraqi government officials are the frequent target of assassinations and abductions...One reason is that we're fighting a new kinds of war that our leaders don't understand.  The administration depicts suicide bombings as a sign of desperation by vicious thugs who know their cause is domed."  He goes on the site from Robert Pape's book about suicide bombings. 

After the London bombings of July 2005, Chapman mused about bin Laden and Hussein and doubted our priorities.  "Saddam Hussein is behind bars.  Osama bin Laden is not.  What's wrong with this picture?...We've been preoccupied by the relentless violence an chaos in Iraq, where we are mired in a war we don't know how to win...The bombings in London are a gruesome but unmistakable reminder that the war on terror ought to Priority 1 Priority 2 and Priority 3.  But as long as we're up to our neck in Iraq, terrorism will not get the attention and resources it demands...Instead of keeping its eye on the ball in Afghanistan  and other Al Qaeda hotbeds, [the administration] let itself be distracted by  Saddam Hussein--a minor-league nuisance who posed no significant threat to our safety and well being...What we are hearing already in response to the London bombings is that we must not be tempted into appeasement.  but it is not appeasement to do now what we should have done before the London bombs--namely, make an early and orderly departure from Iraq.  That would not, as conservatives claim, suggest weakness. It would instead demonstrate a new appreciate of the obvious:  that we can't marshal all the energies we need for the war on terror while we are bogged down in a conflict that had nothing to do with the war on terror."  

In September 2006, in the lead up to the 5th anniversary of 9/11, Chapman reacts to Rumsfeld's American Legion speech comparing of the threat of Saddam to that of Hitler. "You don't have to take my word that Hitler is irrelevant here. The adminstration's own policies confirm as much. If the enemy in Iraq were comparable to the Third Reich, we certainly wouldn't be fighting this war the way Bush and Rumsfeld have fought it."

Steve Chapman doubts the victory is still possible (Nov. 12, 2006). Though he titles his commentary "Bush and Gates: Facing Reality at last?" I might call it "Mission Impossible" (rather the "Mission Accomplished", as the President bragged in 2003). Chapman, no doubt a Chicago Cubs fan, writes, "sometimes a simple move like replacing the manager can put a losing team on the winning track...If only the war...were that easy to solve" because..."a change of personnel won't mean much unless it leads to a change of policy." He notes the change to pessimism of "uberhawk" Richard Perle who admitted in a recent interview that had he foresen "'where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?', I think I probably woud have said no...' This is a reversal on the order of [astronaut] Neil Armstrom concluding he should never have wasted his time with that [first landing on the] moon mission."

Chapman is also concerned that the latest deterioration in security "comes not before a change in our approach but after" we reinforced Baghdad security. "We are rapidly running out of options" while the administration hopes the situation will improve with "time and training." Training doesn't work well enough because "motivation, unfortunately, is something we can't manufacture. The real US strategy at this stage is to hold on and hope for a miracle--which is not good enough to justify our continuing sacrifice of lives and money." A withdrawal now might lead to "even worse turmoil...but noting the risks of failure doesn't tell us whether there is any way to succeed." The Tribune columnists concludes, "If your leg has gangrene, there is nothing to be gained from postponing the amputation, and much to be lost. But it takes a grown-up to tell you that."

Among those critical of the December Iraq Study Group report is John Hopkins professor Eliot Cohen, who accused the panel of "sheer fantasy." To win in Iraq, we need "energy and competence in fighting the fight." After quoting Cohen, Steve Chapman responds, "Energy and competence from an administration that stumbled into this quagmire with no ideas what lay in store? Well, looks who's fantasizing." If the ISG ideas are not likely "to produce a happy outcome, that's only because nothing is likely to prodce a happy outcome...The adminstration...screwed up so many tings along the way, but mainly...the invasion was a doomed enterprise from the start." Chapman feels that people "generally detest foreign occuption" and insugencies usually prevail as with the US in Veitnam, French in Algeria, Israel in Lebanon or Soviets in Afghanistan. "Each had huge advantages in military might, but all failed."

Chapman then responds to critics who say we lost in Vietnam because we lost the "will to fight...But you can hardly expect the people to favor a war that is protracted, costly, launched on mistaken premises and so for unsuccessful--especially when they were told it would be quick and easy. If the administration lack public support that's because the public can no longer believe this war will have a happy ending...The ISG can be criticized for not offering a reliable path to victory But that's like blaming Noah for the flood."

In 2007, Chapman expresses his concern that we are "holding ourselves hostage in Iraq." (2/4/07). He examines his perceived weak arguments of those who think we should stay, like Robert Kagan. They argue that "no matter how bad things are...things would be far worse with us out." The flaw in Kagan's reasoning is that "lamenting the dangers of failure is not the same as finding a formula for success...
-- Why should anyone believe" Bush this time on his "path to victory?" Forecasts for neoconservatives ["greeted as liberators" "reconstruction pays for itself" "Saddam has WMD"] "generally have been as reliable as your daily horoscopes."
-- What about an emboldened al Qaeda? "They're already emboldened. Lost credibility? Our credibility" has already "crumbled."
-- What about the fear of a regional war? "Iran has no reason to interfere directly because its Shiite allies are already in the driver's seat."
--Other fears are that the terrorists will merely follow us back to our shores. "History suggest the opposite" as when Israeli pulled out of Lebanon after 18 years and Hezbollah attacks killed few Israelis. "You are much more likely to get stung by bees if you poke their hive than if you keep your distance."

Chapman concludes, "Although our early departure many have many unwelcome effects, it also will have the huge benefit of saving billions of dollars and dozens of Americans lives every month. To persist in futility because of unreasonable fears is to be hostage to a delusion."

In August of 2007 Chapman wondered, "When will Bush admit the obvious about Iraq?" He opens, "President Bush is confident of ultimate success in Iraq, and he is patiently waiting for this achievement. I'm certain that unicorns exist, and I'm wiling to hang around till they show up in my yard. We may both be deluded, but my delusion is a good deal less costly than his...Bush's policy is that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. But what if the Iraqis never manage to get on their feet?...We helped establish a government in the hope it could bring stability But as Ronald Reagan might have put it, the government is not the solution--the government is the problem." Is it a Civil War? The answer is not critical, because "what's important is that [the policy] amounts to a failure...To keep fighting is akin to placing more bets after you realize the roulette wheel is rigged. Supporters of the administration warn that if we leave now, things will get far worse. That may be. But we are not going to remain in Iraq forever; and there is no reason to think the consequences of our departure will be any grimmer three or five or 10 years from now than they would be today." The Tribune columnist concludes, "We are not going to stay longer enough to succeed in Iraq, and we have already stayed long enough to fail."

Chapman in 2008 included his 1/24/08, "Surging along to a stalemate." He feels the surge "breakthrough" is like those of the past, "composed mostly of wishful thinking and selective vision." Despite claims of improved security, Americans are still "dying at the rate of one every day" and Iraqi deaths are about 1000 per month. This is lower than a year ago but no better than 2005. "To pronounce that reduction a success is like driving your car into a lake and then bragging when you pull it halfway out." As we ally with Sunni insurgents, the Tribune columnists quotes a US sergeant that we are "paying them not to blow us up." The de-Batthification law doesn't prove that Iraqis are ready to compromise and create a stable Iraq. "And as long as we stay in Iraq, they don't have to." Chapman concludes, "What we have achieved in Iraq is not victory but an expensive stalemate that appears to have no end. John McCain, asked how long is willing to keep American forces in Iraq, replied, 'Maybe a hundred years.' If that's the goal, we're on the right track."

Also see "US Politics '07" FAQ section for more on Chapman.

Wesley Clark, former General and Democratic candidate for President in 2004, wrote a lengthy op-ed piece in the Dec. 6, 2005 Times.  He feels that the US approach "shows little sense of Middle East history and politics."  The "killing them all" strategy just makes more enemies.  Staying the course and rapid departure are not wise.  "We need to keep our troops in Iraq, but we need to modify the strategy."

For example, Clark suggests that we fight the insurgency while reaching out to insurgents, ban militias, change the Constitution, let oil revenues be controlled centrally, and gain Syrian concessions.  He concludes, "what a disaster it would be if the real winner in Iraq turned out to be Iran, a county that supports terrorism and opposes most of what we stand for.  Surely, we can summon  the wisdom,  resources, and bipartisan leadership to change the American course before it is too late." 

Richard Clarke, former Clinton and Bush security expert, who had a falling out with the current administration, began a new column in the Sunday New York Times.  His first contribution, Feb. 6, 2004, was entitled, "Why more democracy won't mean less terrorism."  Among his references to Iraq and Zarqawi were:

"Zarqawi and his followers do oppose democracy in Iraq, but they do so partly because they believe that the continuing electoral process...is an American imposition...Beyond Iraq, in the greater Muslim world, opposing democracy is not uppermost in the mind of al Qaeda or the larger Jihadist network."  Clarke recalls that free elections in Indonesia, Algeria and Western Europe "...have not dimmed the desire of Jihadist to create a caliphate."  What causes terrorism against the US?  "The President is right that resentment is growing and that is is breeding terrorism, but it is chiefly resentment of us, not of the absence of democracy.  He concludes, "For many in the Islamic word, the US is still associated with such acts as having made the 250,000 person city of Fallujah uninhabitable.  Because of the enormous resentment of the US government in the Islamic word, documented in numerous opinion polls, we will have to look to nongovernmental organizations and other nations to lead the battle of ideas."

Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, uncertain about war in 2003, was becoming, like many, a harsher critic.  In his May 27 contribution, "Consistently Disconnected" he sees Fallujah as a loss for the U.S., since the AP reports that it has become "an Islamic mini-state."   See Cohen's pre-war thoughts in detail.

 In the President speech a few days earlier had made Iraq "the centerpiece of his war on terrorism, when, as we all know by now, there was never a proven link between Hussein and al Qaeda.  He went on in this vein nonetheless, not mentioning that it was WMD we were once after but, aside from a single trace of sarin uncovered recently and date to before the Persian Gulf War, none have been found."  

"As for terrorism," Cohen continued, "the president made no mention of the parent fact that the war in Iraq has proved a boon to terrorists." He felt we have been "suckered" into a "sort of guerilla war we tried to avoid.  In this respect, Iraq could wind up being an ambush....America is trapped.  Having gone into Iraq, we cannot now pull out...Bad could turn out to be much worse."

Cohen concludes, "But having said that, it's hard to feel confident that the Bush administration is prepared for the challenge ahead.  it has been unforgivably incompetent so far, going to war for one reason, staying for another and layering contradictory facts with Sunday-school rhetoric.  Fallujah, a comprised compromise, becomes a sterling success in the president's' mouth.  A systemic failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions becomes the kinky work a a few. The war over WMDs becomes one over terror.  And Ahmed Chalabi, the erstwhile George Washington of Iraq, becomes Benedict Arnold virtually overnight.  One moment he's Laura Bush' guest at the State of the Union speech; the next he's ranting anti-American screeds in Baghdad."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59053-2004May26?language=printer

Cohen's piece at the end of the Republican National Convention (9/2/04), labeled the GOP as the "Grand Old Prevarication."  He reached his "gag reflex" when speech after speech described the Iraq war as "a defensive one in which America had no choice.  This total and purposeful misreading of history came out of the mouth of almost every speaker, including the sainted John McCain. Bush himself set the party line.  No fact changes his conviction that the war in Iraq is justified.  It does not matter to him that the stated reason for it--those WMD--did not exist.  Without missing a beat, simply changed his war aims.  It is now, in retrospect, the removal of Saddam Hussein.  And if you challenge hi on that, he comes back with a so's-your-mother response that goes like this:  Are you sorry Hussein's gone?  Of course not."  

Cohen sites a recent Bush interview as stating the reasons: Because Saddam "'had terrorist ties, and he had the capacity at the minimum to make WMD.  And he could have passed that capacity on to enemies.'  But every government commission under the sun... has concluded that Hussein had no relevant ties to al Qaeda.  And while he certainly had the capacity to make WMD, so do a plethora of counties--some, such as Iran and North Kea, of the nuclear kinds.  As for passing such weapons on to our enemies, that didn't happen in Iraq and probably wouldn't have.  Hussein was a selfish sort who like to keep his weapons close.  Paranoids usually do." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54698-2004Sep1?language=printer

Cohen in the summer of 2005 included an analyses of suicide bombings in the weeks after the London attacks.  "Sanity in the Face of Suicide"  notes that in the Western world "suicide is anathema.  We often attribute suicide to mental illness--profound depression, for instance--and try to deny it even to the terminally ill.  And the the Western world particularly in America, we are wont to attribute our beliefs to others.  everyone wants democracy.  Everyone wants jeans and rock music.  Everyone values life, particularly one's own.  Once again we have learned the hard way that our beliefs are not universally shared...Now we are ...confronting another enemy that see so alien it might as well not be consider human...We are at war in Iraq because of terrorist attacks that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with.  We were entitled to be angry.  But were were obliged to be smart."  These attackers "are all Muslim, and they seem to most of us to have lost their humanity.  Maybe so.  But it will only benefit the suicide bombers if we lose ours in return."

Cohen's December 8th "Truth for the Troops" criticized Cheney but reiterates that he is not ready to start a pullout, unlike Rep. Murtha.  As a veteran of the Korean era, Cohen writes, "If you cannot tell soldiers why they might die, then you cannot send them...But Cheney was not strictly truthful.  He turned the war in Iraq into a war against terrorism, when it is only party that.  The Sunni insurgents have no designs on America...I do not favor an immediate pullout...not yet anyway...There is reason to fear civil war...the country's dissolution, the creation of a haven for terrorist and the precipitous loss of American prestige, which could encourage even more terrorism."  

Cohen concludes, "But I do not fear the emergence of a vast, radical Islam empire stretching from Granada to Jakarta, and neither do I believe that toppling Hussein dealt a blow to terrorists or made the US one iota safer.  Soon enough we will exceed in military deaths the number of civilians killed on Sept. 11--and the culprits, including Osama bin Laden, are still on the loose, still posing a threat." 

In the wake of the 5th year anniversary of 9/11/06, Cohen's "Bin Laden's Victory" opens, "I hear...bin Laden laughing...It was always his intention to draw the Americans into AFghanistan, where, as had been done to the Soviet,s they could be mauled by the fierce mujaheddin." But when Bush invaded Iraq without finishing Afghanistan, "to bin Laden's amazement...the US took on his enemy, the secular and ungodly Saddam Hussein, whom bin Laden himself would gladly have murdered."

On Abu Ghraib, Cohen feels that with torture and rendition and "by insisting on going it almost alone in Iraq, by telling the international community to shove it...the US has made itself reviled in much of the world."

NPR came the two year war perspective of the University of Michigan's Juan Cole.  His "US Caught in the Crossfire" Cole opens, "
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4532913

"Time to Pull Out.  And Not Just From Iraq" is John Deutch's contribution in the New York Times of July 15.  Deutch was deputy secretary of defense and CIA director in the '90s. Though Bosnia started as a worthwhile intervention to stop ethnic cleansing it became a goal of establishing a multi ethic state among three groups.  Interventions which replace dictators for regimes more to our liking is a worthy goal but "unlikely to succeed."  He continues "There is a widespread view, even among many who opposed the invasion, that we have a responsibility to keep our troops in place until certain minimum conditions are achieved" such as security, stable government and reconstruction.  "Prompt withdrawal is considered unthinkable by most Republicans and Democrats, because it is difficult to envision a pullout that leaves peaceful Iraq in its wake and doesn't invite further unrest in the region. So the expectation is that we will be in Iraq for several more years, perhaps with a somewhat reduced presence but spending considerable money (more than $1 billion per week) and sacrificing lives (one dozen or two dozen deaths and serious casualties per week), while working to achieve those minimum objectives required for withdrawal."

Deutch feels that this conventional view ignores how much our interests are harmed by staying and how able we are to deal with other conflicts. "Those who argue that we should 'stay the course' because an early withdrawal...would hurt America's global credibility must consider the possibility that we will fail in our objectives...and suffer an even worse loss of credibility down the road.  I do not believe that we are making progress on any of our key objectives."

So, what does the former Pentagon and CIA official suggest?  A prompt withdrawal plan, beginning after the next Iraqi election of December 15, 2005.  "We should also plan on continuing measures like no-flight zones, border surveillance, training for Iraqi security forces, intelligence collection and maintenance of a regional  quick-reaction force."  Economy aid is also important. 

Author E.L. Doctorow writes in "The Unfeeling President" that he faults the president "for not knowing what death is....He does not mourn...He wanted to go to war and he did...Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not the cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator.  He knew that much." 

Maureen Dowd continued her frequent  criticism of the President.  In late August she responded in the Times to the President's "we owe the soldiers something" speech.  "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."  She responded, "What twisted logic:  with no WMD, no link to 9/11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already?  Talk about a vicious circle:  the killing keeps justifying itself." (8/24/05).

Maureen Dowd criticized Cheney's September 2006 comments on Meet The Press and Bush's new interest in bin Laden, calling them circular reasoning. "Instead of going after Osama, we invaded Iraq. Now W. says we must stay in Iraq or it will be run by Osamas. We must kill all the terrorists we are creating. American soldiers must keep dying because American soldiers have died. If we criticize Mr. Bush, then we're unmanning the whole country. The logic is deviously Rovian, and we are trapped in their circularity."

Dowd's"A Wartime Love Story" (11/4/06) just before the US elections. She wondered what voters really knew. Dowd referred to administration hawks as "Cakewalk" Ken Adelman and Richard "Nix Blix" Perle and concluded, "The neocons insist that it was the execuation of the war that was wrong. Actually it was wrong to go to war with a trumped-up casus belli and without ever debating what could happen if they took a baseball bat to a beehive. A war desinged to bring moral good shouldn't start with a pack of lies. As a Shakespeare expert, Mr. Adelman shoud have known about ends and means."

Georgie Anne Geyer (syndicated in the Tribune) opened 2004 with an emphasis on political and economic problems over the White House claims of democratization and freedom, in her "Iraq in review:  Confusion and lack of planning", (1/2/04).

She closed 2004 with her "Dream a little dream with me" in which she focuses not on what did happen during the year, but what could have happened, if only...the US had attacked "the real terrorists...Acting in that manner would have excluded the Iraq war, and by now the situation in Afghanistan would have been almost under control  By striking only, and successfully, at the real terrorist and not following the neo-cons' idiotic adventure into Iraq to transfigure the Arab world for their own agenda, the US would have won, as it did after Sept. 11, 2001, the admiration of the world." 

One of Geyer's 2005 contributions was about "common sense."  In reaction to the Newsweek story of Koran abuse, she quotes Rumsfeld as saying, "People died because of this."  Geyer replies, "True; but an awful lot of people have died from this administration's mistakes , and there has been precious little mourning around here for all those dead Iraqis and Afghans.  And the last two years have been replete with insults to Muslim by American troops in Iraq--they are 'raghead,' Americans invade mosques and live in them, Muslim homes are not respected."  The veteran commentary writer concludes, "As the government goes it obsessively suspicious way, anonymous sources sometimes become the only sources.  In the end, the government is at least as guilty as Newsweek." (5/20/05). For more on the Newsweek story, see "PS Torture" FAQ. 

Sen. Gary Hart ran for President in the '80s and was George McGovern's anti-Vietnam 1972 campaign manager.  He wrote in August 2005, "We've stumbled into a hornet's nest.  We've weakened ourselves at home and in the world.  We are less secure today than before this war began.  Who now has the courage to say this?"

Bob Herbert weighed in at the New York Times on April 2, 2004 with his "No End in Sight" perspective.  (Also see Herbert's pre-war views)  Wrote Herbert, "We're told that President Bush watched the television news coverage of the Iraqi mob that attacked, burned, and mutilated our American civilians in Falluja...I can imagine the fury he must have felt.

"But I wonder what specific thoughts ran through his mind, and what other emotions he experienced...We rode into this wholly unnecessary conflict on the wave of Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and we've made has of it.  Hundreds of Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis have died for a reason the administration has never been able to coherently explain. Recalling the President's May 1 "major combat is over" speech on the USS Lincoln, Herbert continued, "He was wrong, of course, just as he was wrong about the [WMD], and about the number of troops that would be needed to secure Iraq, and so many other things. In fact, the Bush administration has managed to conceal any and all evidence that it knows the first thing about what it's doing in Iraq."  Herbert recalls that O'Neill and Gen. Shinseki and Clarke were "slimmed" for their negative reports.  Clarke said, according to Herbert, that "the war in Iraq had undermined the war against terror."  The piece concludes, "We are mired in a savage mess in Iraq, and no one knows how to get our of it.  More than 600 U.S. troops are already dead...We're flying blind."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0402-09.htm

If we were dealt this hand in a poker game, we'd fold.  but with 135,000 troops on the ground and no real Iraqi government in sight, that's not an option.  It's heartbreaking to think that brave American troops have once again been put into such an untenable situation.  The president, who led us into this wholly unnecessary war, has an obligation to step up and level with the American people, to take full responsibility for the current disaster and to summon help forma genuine international coalition, which is the only feasible route to a resolution in Iraq."  See more on Herbert before the war.

Herbert followed with "The Wrong War" on April 19.  Ever critical of the misguided reasons for war, the Times columnist opens:  "Follow me, said the president.  And, tragically, we did.  With his misbegotten war in Iraq, his failure to throw everything we had at Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and his fantasy of using military might as a magic want to 'change the world', President Bush has ushered the American people into a bloody and mind-bending theater of the absurd."  He reminds readers that The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda not by Iraq.  Reflecting on the President's press conference earlier that week, Herbert continues, "President Bush may truly believe...that he is carrying out a mission that has been sanctioned by the divine.  But he has in fact made the world less safe with his catastrophic decision to wage was in Iraq.  At least 700 G.I's and thousand s of innocent Iraqis, including many women and children, are dead.  Untold numbers have been maimed and there is no end to the carnage in sight."  He feels that we have energized terrorists rather than destroy them.  "The invasion and occupation of Iraq has become a rallying cry for Islamic militants."  Herbert concludes, "...We are spilling the blood of innocents in a nightmare from which many thousands will never awaken."

Herbert's "Fiddling as Iraq Burns" (December 2004) is another harsh critique of the administration and the ongoing violence.  He opens, "The White House seems to have slipped the bonds of simple denial and escaped into the disturbing realm of utter delusion" in regards to the Metal of Freedom awards given to Tenet, Bremer, and Franks.  

Herbert feels that Tenet did "the great disservice of declaring that the WMD case was a 'slam-dunk.'"  Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army.  "Thousands upon thousands have died in this unnecessary and incompletely conducted war, yet there was the president handing out medals as if some kind of triumph had been achieved.  If these guys could get the highest civilian award, what honor if left for someone who actually does a good job."  Herbert also complained about The disconnect "between the White House' s fantasyland" and the war of war.  He concluded, "Medals anyone?  The president may actually believe that this crowd is the best and brightest America has to offer.  Which is disturbing."  

"War On The Cheap" was Herbert's December 20 contribution  He expressed concern that by now at least 1000 troops had been evacuated by the Army "for psychiatric reasons, including attempts or threatened attempts at suicide...From the earliest planning stages until now, the war...has been a tragic exercise in official incompetence.  The original rationale for the war was wrong.  The intelligence was wrong.  The estimates of required troop strength were wrong.  The war hawk's guesses about the response of the Iraqi people were wrong.  The cost estimates were wrong, and on and on." 

Herbert's moving "Families Pay The Price" recalls his days during the '60s when he was sent off to Korea, not Vietnam.  The Mosul mess tent attacks of the previous week reminded him of the days when American troops are once again "sent on a fools' errand [and] are coming home in coffins, or without their right arm or left legs, or paralyzed, or so messed up mentally they'll never be the same.  Troops are being shoved tow or three times into the furnace of Iraq by astonishingly incompetent leaders who have been unable to unwilling to provide them with the proper training, adequate equipment or eve a clearly defined mission.

He continued, "It is a mind-boggling tragedy.  And the suffering goes far beyond the men and women targeted by the insurgents.  Each death ...blows a hole in a family and stets off concentric circles of grief that touch everyone else who knew and cared for the fallen solder.  If the human stakes were understood well enough by the political leaders of this country, it might make them a little more reluctant to launch foolish, unnecessary and ultimately unwinnable wars...nearly 900 American children have lost a parent to the war in Iraq.  More than 40 fathers died without seeing their babies."  He recounts one four year old saying to his mother, "'I don't want to be a daddy because daddies die.' Herbert goes on to describe how "we have completely lost our way" with a president "almost perversely out of touch" with optimistic comments about democracy taking hold when "we can't even secure the road to the Baghdad airport" or protect our troops having lunch.  

The Times columnist concludes, "Nobody has a plan.  We don't have enough troops to secure the county, and the Iraqi forces have shown neither the strength nor the will to do to themselves.  Election officials are being murdered in the streets.  The insurgency is growing in both strength and sophistication...One of the things that President Bush might consider while on his current [Christmas] vacation is whether there are any limits to the price our troops should be prepared to pay for his misadventure in Iraq, or whether the suffering and dying will simply go on indefinitely."  
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/1227-22.htm

In late July of 2005 (7/28) the columnist continued to write nearly every column on Iraq, probably the only journalist to do so in the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and New York Times.  In "Oil and Blood" he looks at the stated reasons for war and wonders why oil resources are not spoken of more often. The August Constitution is " a logical escape hatch for George W. Bush....His mantra would be:  There's a government in place.  We won.  We're out of there.  but don't count on it...The whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure American domination of the middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as 'the greatest single prize in all history.'"

Herbert looks at the stated reasons for war, WMD, the evil Saddam, Al Qaeda connections, fighting them "over there" but concludes, "It's the oil, stupid."  Neocons in the administration sought a military takeover of Iraq even before 9/11.  Iran was to be next.  The invasion of Iraq "was part of a much larger, long-term policy that had to do with the US imposing its will, militarily when necessary, throughout the Middle East and beyond...But dreams of empire die hard."  

Herbert concludes his last thoughts of July, "Many high-level govern figures believe that US troops will be in Iraq for a minim of 5 more years, and perhaps 10.  That should be understood by the people who think that the formation of a permanent Iraqi government will lead to the withdrawal of Arm3ican troops. There is no real withdrawal plan.  The fighting and the dying will continue indefinitely." 

In 2006, Herbert continued to write often about how poorly things were going in Iraq.  His April 17 column, "The Fear Factor" suggested that it was time for Americans to "wise up." about the war on terror.  "From the very beginning, the so-called war on terror was viewed by the Bush crowed as a magical smoke screen, a political gift from the gods that could be endlessly manipulated to justify all kinds of policies and behavior--including the senseless war in Iraq--that otherwise would never have been tolerated by the American people...That fear, and the patriotism felt by so many millions of America, have been systematically exploited by the administration.  The invasion of Iraq was not about terror.  It was about oil and schoolboy fantasies of empire and whatever weird oedipal dynamics were at work in the Bush family."

"While Iraq Burns" is Herbert's November 27, 2006 piece, coming in the days after the Thanksgiving attacks in Sadr City, the new most deadly day of the war. "Americans are shopping while Iraq burns. The competing television news images on the morning after Thanksgiving were of the unspeakable carnage...and car bombs...and the long lines of cars filled with holiday shopping zealots...There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition" because the war was started by the US "but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it." Without a draft, Americans aren't paying attention and don't care, surmises Herbert. "With no obvious personal stake...most Americans are indifferent to its consequences." A college student of the U. of Conn, a history major says, "I get the feeling that most people at school don't even think about the war. They're most concerned with what grade they got on yesterday's test." Added a Sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, "None of my friends even really care about what's going on in Iraq." The widespread indifference "enables most American to go about their daily lives completing unconcerned about the atrocities resulting from a war being waged in their name. " Also see "Draft" FAQ.

"The Time is Now", argued Herbert on December 10, after the release of the Iraq Study Group report.

We need more protests, urges Herbert after Bush's surge speech of January 2007. He feels Democrats don't have an answer for the war. "Ask a potential Democratic present what he or she would do about the war, and you'll get a doctoral dissertation...A straight answer? Surely you jest." Herbert suggests that it is time "for thoughtful citizens to turn off their TV's and step into the public arena. Protest. Attend meetings. Circulate petition. Run for office. I suspect the public right now is way ahead of the politicians when it comes to ideas about creating a more peaceful., nore equitable, more intelligent society."

Quoting Martin Luther King in a late January column, Herbert recalled King saying in 1967, "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on program of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

Bob Herbert, writing for the Times in early December 2007 worries about the costs of the war. We are "flushing whole generations worth of cash into the bottomless pit of a failed and endless war." He quoted Sen. Shumer (D-NY) about "the #1 reason" the war should end. The loss of life "'without accomplishing any of the goals that even President Bush put forward.' But 'right below that'..is the need is to stop squandering incredible amounts of money that could be put to better use--helping to 'make peoples' lives better'--here at home. The colossal and continuing waste, he said, 'should cause anxiety to anyone who cares about the future of this country.'" Hidden costs include wounded, disabled, interest on the debt, replacing military equipment, recruitment and retention challenges, and loss of productivity. Herbert concludes that "youngsters who were just starting high school when the US invaded Iraq are in college now. Their children, yet unborn, will be called on to fork over tax money to continue paying for the war. Seriously. How long do we want this madness to last?"

Herbert penned a similar commentary in April, 2008, "Losing Our Will." Our health care system is lacking and our standard of living is dropping. Meanwhile, our country "seems almost paralyzed, mesmerized by Iraq and unable to generate the energy or the will to handle the myriad problems festering at home." He refers to Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz $3 trillion war book who feels that the two biggest gainers were oil companies and defense contractors. Herbert is further upset that Amb. Crocker and Gen. Petraeus "were unable to give any real answers as to when the US might be able to disengage, or when a corner might be turned...A country that used to act like Babe Ruth now swings like a minor-leaguer." The war "stands like a boulder in the road, blocking progress on so many other important issues that are crucial to our viabiltiy as a society. We've seen this before. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which included the war on poverty, was crippled by the war in Vietnam." Herbert concludes, "On the evening of April 4, 1967, one year to the day before he was assassinated, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went into Riverside Church in Manhattan and said of the war in Vietnam: 'This madness must cease.' Forty-one years later, we can still hear the echo of Dr. King's call. The only sane response is: 'Amen.'"

Most of Herbert's other 2008 columns fit more appropriately in other FAQ sections. However, his last of 2008, "Stop Being Stupid" examines New Years resolutions. His suggestion for a resolution "may be difficult, but it's essential. Americans must resolve to be smarter going forward than we have been for the past several years. Look around you. We have behaved in ways that were incredibly, astoundingly and embarrassingly stupid for much too long...Something for nothing became the order of the day. You want to invade Iraq? Convince yourself that oil revenues out of Baghdad will pay for it. (Meanwhile, carve out another deficit channel in the federal budget.)

Also see Troops/Cost FAQ.

Fellow Post commentator David Ignatius, also prominently featured in columnists' pre-war arguments, looks back on "this turbulent year" of 2003 and wonders how should Americans "make sense of the war in Iraq and the foreign-policy traumas that surrounded it.

What went right, what went wrong--and why?  Historians will be pondering these questions for years.  One can already imagine a long queue of books that will dissect this year of Iraq..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31113-2003Dec25?language=printer

Ignatius connected the horrific Tsunami destruction and death with our reputation around the world, in "More Water Bottles, Fewer Bullets"  (1/4/04).  "We talk these days about an 'exit strategy' from Iraq.  But the troth is that we need a better 'entry strategy' into the lives and welfare of people around the globe.  The way out of our current predicament, paradoxically, is to become more connected with the world, not less.  I hope President Bush realizes how much it matters that the world sees the American military [in the Indian Ocean] hading out water bottles rather than firing M-16s...Polls show that the US is increasingly unpopular around the world--regarded as arrogant, militaristic and selfish.  The terrorist Osama bin Laden has gotten higher favorability ratings in some Muslim countries than...Bush.  We may think those poll findings are unfair--outrageous, even--but that indignation doesn't do us any good.  The task for America's leaders is to turn those perceptions around."

Responding to Bush's claim that he has a mandate on Iraq after winning re-election, the Post columnist replies, "That's stretching things-given that Bush offered so little detail during the campaign about his plans for Iraq or anything else.  You can't have a mandate for polices you haven't explained.  But again, he's president, and he has certainly won the test of reelection."  ("Worrisome Hubris", 1/21/05). 

Molly Ivins, syndicated columnist from Texas and frequent critic of the "Bushies", wrote in early February after the elections that she is an optimist.  But mitigating her optimism is "the fact that I've been around for along time...I can remember when they had elections in Vietnam that looked hopeful in 1967.  I can remember the elections in El Salvador in 1984."

Ivins continues about four "light at the end of the tunnel" turning points that didn't' make much difference:   "In Iraq alone, we've been through 'Mission accomplished" then the violence would end once we captured Saddam Hussein, then the all-important handover of sovereignty that would make all the difference the next the destruction of Fallujah that was going to break the insurgency. (Well, it did destroy Fallujah).  Someday we will actually capture Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and I bet we find that doesn't make much difference, either."

Molly Ivins died in January, 2007. She had breast cancer. One obituary came from her home state of Texas. Many journalists reflected on the impact of her writings. One was Times' Paul Krugman, entitled "Missing Molly Ivins."

Ivins' last column, published after her death, ended: "Every single day, every one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war. Raise hell....Make our troops know we're for them and trying to get them out of there. Hit the streets to protest Bush's proposed surge. We need people in the streets banging pots and pans and demanding, 'Stop it, now!'"

Derrick Jackson of the Chicago Tribune and Boston Globe provided a harsh but clear overview of the countdown to war in  "The invasion was still a lie.  The capture of Saddam Hussein changes nothing about that.  There were too many forked tongues in the road to his lair...No major reason for the war has been proven...Bush scared Americans with fears of an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons."

 Jackson concludes, "With no weapons, no ties, and no truth, the capture of Saddam was merely the most massive and irresponsible police raid in modern times." 
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1217-03.htm

Jackson end of 2004 piece criticizes the war and the medals given to Tenet, Franks, and Bremer.  His "Deja vu for the delusion of medals"  The ever-frequent war critic writes, "The day after Bush said progress was being made, the most deadly single attack occurred against American soldiers in the 21-month invasion and occupation of Iraq."
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/1222-21.htm

Jackson's column of July 11, 2005 responded to the bombings in London earlier that week. He opens, "In his initial reaction...President Bush decried "people killing innocent people."  He said: "'The contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty and those who kill--those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.'"  But Jackson looks at innocent Iraqis killed in the war and concludes, "The propaganda of an invasion with invisible innocent surely allowed Bush to seamlessly switch his sated reason from the unique horrors of WMD to liberating an oppressed people.  It is a lot easier to tell the world you are their great liberator if you do not have to own up to the thousands of dead people who will never get the chance to vote in the free election.  Worse, this denial of death in a war that did not have to happen, is sure to fuel the very terrorism we say we will defeat.  The innocents in the so called war on terror are always 'our' citizens or the citizens of our allies.  The only innocent Iraqis are those killed by 'insurgents.'  Ours solders clearly did not intend to kill innocents.  But this posturing of America as the great innocent, when everyone knows we kill innocent ourselves, is likely only to make us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber."

Jackson's "Invisible Integrity" (12/12/05) wonders which part of the Bible Bush emphasized.  "It must have been Psalm 115.  That passage says, 'They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they hear not; noses have they, but they smell not; they have hands, but they handle not; neither speak they through their throats....'  The President said recently, "'Here in America, in our system the judicial process will be fully transparent.'  The only thing transparent about the administration are its excuses." 

Nicholas Kristof spent much of 2005 and 2006 writing about the horrific genocide in Sudan.  However, in mid-November (11/13/05) he wrote on "The Exit From Iraq".  It opened, "So how do we get out of Iraq?  It's easy to be antiwar, and tempting just to blast away at the Bush administration for getting us into this quagmire.  But the essential question is how do we extricate ourselves, and that' a hard one to answer."  In general, he examines the "Cut Our Losses" crowd and the "Stay The Course" crowd.

"Immediate withdrawal strikes me as utterly immoral...Anybody who thinks that Iraqi today couldn't become worse hasn't contemplate Lebanon during its civil war --or Somalia today."  On the other hand, "Our very presence feeds the insurgency...It creates insecurity as well as security...I came to realize how much the neocons lived in a dream world..."  Kristof examines a poll commissioned by the British military which found that "82% were 'strongly opposed' to the presence of coalition troops, and 67% felt less secure because of the occupation."  He concludes, "So Mr. Bush's grim insistence on staying the course indefinitely, and his refusal to renounce unequivocally any interest in US bases, reflects the same mistake he has made all along: a failure to appreciate the vigor of Iraqi nationalism.  And now we're caught in a trop.  We can't pull out, but by hindering down indefinably we help fuel the insecurity that keeps us in Iraq." 

Then on November 15 Kristof wrote of "Iraq in the Rear-View Mirror."  It opened, "As we puzzle over how to end our nightmare in Iraq, the central question is from The Times...'How much longer are valuable lives to be sacrificed in the vain endeavor to impose upon the Arab population an elaborate and expensive administration which they never asked for?'  Not this Times, though.  It was The Times of London on August. 7, 1920, as a ferocious insurgency threatened the British occupation of Iraq."  Kristof weights the suggestion by some of immediate withdrawal against a "staying the course indefinitely" which "inflames nationalistic resentment and feeds the insurgency."  So, he suggests setting target dates and announce we plan to pullout at least half our troops by the end of 2006, and the rest in 2007.  "We would also pledge that we will not keep any military bases in Iraq...Will this work?  I'm not sure...the big advantage...is that [target dates] can encourage insurgents" to hang on."  But, target dates also "show some sensitivity to the resentment of our presence."

Kristof adds, "If we can make it clear that we're headed for the exists, that'll make it harder for the insurgents to portray themselves as nationalist heroes...deadlines have proved the only way to target Iraqi politicians to do anything."  The columnist concludes, "All the Iraq options are bad.  But this is the least bad."

"All our options are bad," writes Nicholas Kristof in October 2006, stating the obvious. He worries that a timetable might encourage insurgents to hang on. "Or maybe Iraq will fall apart no matter what we do." But our presence, including "suspicions that we plan to stay forever--is doing more harm than good." A State Department poll concluded that nearly 3/4 of Baghdad residents said "they would feel safer if US forces left Iraq." Kristof concludes, "So it's time to face the grim reality and announce that all our troops will leave Iraq by October 2007." For much more on Kristof and other columnists, see "Op-Ed" FAQ.

Nicholas Kristof wrote about costs in late October, 2006. "For every additional second we stay in Iraq, we taxpayers will end up paying an additional $6300." Estimates from Rumsfeld were under $50 billion and from Wolfowitz that their Iraqi oil could finance reconstuction but now estimates are as high as $2 trillion, $6600 per "American man, woman and child." The costs include budgetary, social and macroeconomic. Borrowing adds about $300 billion in interest. The price of oil has increased. 3000 veterans will need to be treated, including disability payments for years with severe head injuries which could include round the clock care. "Every additional year we keep our troops in Iraq will add $200 billion to our tax bills." Kristof concludes, "We're spending $380,000 for every extra minute we stay in Iraq and we can find better ways to spend that money."

"Cut and Walk" (12/5/06) allows Kristof to examine extremists and violence. Our "biggest foreign policy mistake", repeated in Iraq is our "insensitivity to nationalism" because we end up "empowering extremists who destabilize the country." Kristof provides the example of "perhaps the single most brutal mass murder", Abu Deraa, "a psychopathic thug" who kidnaps and tortures. He has been able to use his attacks on American forces "to win political cover to foment civil war...Our open-ended military presence, perceived by Iraqi as a grab of Iraqi oil bases, ends up legitimizing extremist like Abu Deraa and aggravating civil war." We should promise to leave all military bases as "a simple step that would save American and Iraqi lives." Polls show that Iraqis overwhelmingly believe that our presence exacerbates violence. Kristof concludes, "We needn't cut and run. But let's post a schedule, and then cut and walk."

The New York Times Paul Krugman's December 19, 2003 piece reviews the causes of the war and misstatements of the administration (for much more on Krugman, see pre-war "Should We/Columnists Against" FAQ section)

"We shouldn't let war supporters use the occasion of Saddam's capture to rewrite the recent history of U.S. foreign policy, to draw a veil over the way the nation was misled into war." 
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1219-04.htm

In March 2004, Krugman reacted to the alleged "appeasement" of the Spanish electorate three days after the Madrid train bombings.  His "Taken for a Ride" of March 18.  In comparing Spain of March 2004 with the U.S. of 2003, he writes, "So there you have it.  A country's ruling party leads the nation into a war fought on false pretenses, fails to protect the nation from terrorists and engages in a cover-up when a terrorist attacked does occur.  But its electoral defeat isn't democracy at work; it's a victory for the terrorists."  Krugman concludes on "the bigger point":  "...in the Bush vision, it was never legitimate to challenge any piece of the administration's policy on Iraq  Before the war, it was your patriot duty to trust the president's' assertions about the case for war.  Once we went in and those assertions proved utterly false, it became your patriotic duty to support the troops--a phrase that, to the administration, always means supporting the president.  At no point has it been legitimate to hold Mr. Bush accountable.  And that's the way he wants it."

Krugman's mid-April "Snares and Delusions" accused Bush and his inner circle of being "more divorced from reality than ever" in terms of dealing with Chalabi and Sadr.  After the Fallujah Four, he quotes the Jerusalem Post that Bush told officials "'I want heads to roll.'  Didn't someone warn him of the likely consequences of attempting to carry out a manhunt in a hostile, densely populated urban area?"  Krugman feels that we keep hearing we about to "turn the corner", with the killing of Hussein's sons, capture of Saddam, hunt of Zarqawi, etc. He fears that if we follow the wrong advice of the architects of the war, "Iraq really will turn into another Vietnam." 
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0413-01.htm

"What Went Wrong", also by Krugman, looks at the big picture (4/23/04).  The dismal failure to prepare for security and nation building which concerns Anthony Cordesman, is detailed by Krugman on many fronts.  "Just as experts on peacekeeping predicted before the war, the invading force was grossly inadequate to maintain power war security.  And this problem was compounded by a chain of blunders: doing nothing to stop the postwar looting, disbanding the Iraqi Army, canceling local election, appointing an interim council dominated by exiles with no political base and excluding important domestic group.  The lesson of the last few weeks is that the occupation has never recovered from those early errors."  Krugman predicts that "deteriorating security prevents progress, lack of progress feeds popular disillusionment, and disillusionment feeds the insurgency."

Krugman continued to write frequently about Iraq in the summer and fall of 2004.  His "No-Win Situation" (8/31/04) examined quagmire, problems, and possible solutions.  As Najaf continued in the headlines, most of western Iraq was now under rebel control.  The Christian Science Monitor reports that Sadr has more support than before the latest Najaf standoff.  (Also see "Why are Americans Being Killed FAQ section).  "For a long time, anyone suggesting analogies with Vietnam was ridiculed.  But Iraq optimist, have, by my count, already declared victory three times.  First there was "Mission Accomplished"--followed by an escalating insurgency.  Then there was the capture of Saddam--followed by April's blood uprising.  Finally there was the furtive transfer of formal sovereignty to Ayad Allawi, with implausible claims that this shows progress--a fantasy exploded by the guns of August.

In terms of solutions, Krugman admits that there might not be one.  If we pull out will it be a deeper disaster?  What is the answer?  "Much of US policy...delaying elections, trying to come up with a formula that blocks simple majority rule, trying to install fist Mr. Chalabi, then Mr. Allawi, as strongman--can be seen a a persistent effort to avoid giving Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani his natural dominant role."  Should we have known of the difficulties after the initial war?  Responding to Bush's unanticipated "catastrophic success", Krugman explains that it was predicted "by many experts."  Anthony Cordesman's warnings "were ignored because we have 'the weakest and most ineffective NSC in post-war American history' giving control to 'a small group of neoconservative ideologues' who 'shaped a war without any realistic understanding or plans for shaping a peace.'"

Krugman in 2005  included "That Magic Moment" in the lead up to the Iraqi elections.  When President Bush called the US election "the accountability moment" for the war, Krugman feels he isn't leveling with us and does not deserve our trust.  "I won't belabor the WMD issue, except to point out that the Bush administration, without exactly lying, managed to keep most voters confused.  According to a Pew poll, on the even of the election the great majority of voters, of both parties, believe that the Bush administration had asserted that it found either WMD or an active WMD program in Iraq.  Mr. Bush also systemically misrepresented how the war was going."

Looking at oil privatization was Krugman's March 18 piece.  He recalled that in spring 2003 Gay Garner, the first Iraqi administrator, wanted elections "as quickly as possible, but the White House wanted to put a 'template' in pace by privation oil and other industries before handing over control  The oil fields never did get privatized.  Nonetheless, the attempt to turn Iraq into a laissez-faire showpiece was, in its own way, as much in in-your-face refection of the world opinion as the decision to go to war."

He refers to the Downing Street Memo (see details of the memo) which confirms "what apologist for the war have always denied:  for Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted"  The memo included that the war would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Krugman asks, "Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, 'the case was thin' and Saddam's 'WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea , or Iran."  Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantage aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the word. But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies.  Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport.  

At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable.  Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960s search-and-destroy mission, body count and all."

"So, what's the plan?  The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news.  But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times.  January' election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't."  Krugman concludes.  "And every year that the war goes on our military gets weaker...I'm not advocating an immediate pullout, but we have to tell the Iraqi government that our stay is time-limited, and that it has to find a way to take care of itself.  The point is that something has to give. we either need a much bigger army--which means a draft--or we need to find a way out of Iraq."

Krugman reacts to the President's prime time speech on Iraq in his "America Held Hostage" of July 1.  Some progressives and democrats are against announcing a time-table, but Krugman is not one of them. He reminds us that  the country "missed the chance to say no to this war before it started, but it can still say no to Mr. Bush's open-ended commitment, and demand a time-table for getting out...I know that this argument will be hard to sell.  Despite everything that has happened, many Americans still want to believe that this war can and should be seen through to victory."  

Krugman feels that we need to face up to three realities:
1.  "The war is helping, not hurting the terrorists."
2.  "The kind of clear victory the hawk promised is no longer possible, if it ever was" and
3.  "A time limit on our commitment will do more good than harm."

While Bush argues that a timetable would encourage the insurgents to "wait us out", "the insurgents don't seem to need encouragement.  It's far more likely that if the Iraqi government knew that our support had an expiration date, it would both look to its own defenses and, more important, try harder to find a political solution to the insurgency."  Krugman concludes, "Once we're no longer targets, the foreign terrorists won't be welcome.  The point is that the presence of American forces in Iraq is making our country less safe. So it's time to start winding down the war."

In October, Krugman's "Questions of Character" (10/14/05) looks at the news business in terms of Howard Dean and Colin Powell before the war.  "Read the speeches Howard Dean...and compare them with" Powell at the UN.  "Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories.  But somehow, their labels got switched i the way they were presented to the public by the news media."

Krugman in October 2006 returned to Iraq. His Oct. 27 piece opens, "Iraq is a lost cause...American forces there are large enough to suffer terrible losses, but far too small to stabilize the country...We need to get out of Iraq" partly so that we could possibly save Afghanistan. in 1995, the US Army War College published troops estimate against insurgents. They suggest 20 troops per 1000 inhabitants. This would equate to 500,000 US troops, of which we have only a third. "It's hard to believe that the world's only superpower is one the verge of losing not just one but two wars."

Bechtel, added Krugman on Nov. 3, is leaving Iraq. They have been paid $2.3 billion and lost the lives of 52 employees. "They've already cut and run." He wonders about failed reconstruction and "if we've given up on rebuilding in Iraq, what are our troops dying for?...The bottom line is that those charged with rebuilding Iraq had no incentive to do the job right, so they didn't." The Times columnist concludes, "I don't know whether the administration is afraid to ask US voters for more money, or simply considers the situation hopeless. Either way , the US has accepted defeat on reconstruction. Yet Americans are still fighting and dying in Iraq. For what?

Krugman's 2007 commentaries included his May 28 "Trust and Betrayal" in which he uses Memorial Day to reflect on the war and its beginnings. Last year President Bush had said at Arlington National Cemetery, "'In this place where valor sleeps, we are reminded why America has always gone to war reluctantly, because we know the costs of war.'" Replies Krugman, "Those were fine words, spoken by a man with less right to say them than any president in our nation's history. For Mr. Bush took us to war not with reluctance, but with unseemly eagerness...How did it all go so wrong? Future historians will shake their heads over how easily America was misled to war. The warning signs, the indications that we had a rogue administration determined to use 9/11 as an excuse for war, were there, for those willing to see them, right from the beginning-even before Mr. Bush began explicitly pushing for war..." The Times columnist feels that "alarm bells" should have gone off with the use of the "axis of evil." "But the nation, brought together in grief and anger over the attacks, wanted to trust the man occupying the White House. And so it took a long time before Americans were wiling to admit to themselves just how thoroughly their trust had been betrayed." Now, "to keep the war going" Bush has brought "the original bogyman back out of the closet." While bin Laden was mentioned by Bush only seven times in 2003, now "Osama is back." Krugman sees the problem of misinformation continuing and examines the candidacy of Romney, who says that a coalition of "Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda' wants to 'bring down the West." The columnists feels that Romney should be "ridiculed for his ignorance."

Ray McGovern is a 27 year veteran of the CIA.  He was long concerned about the faulty evidence in the pre-war years.  McGovern's February 2005 piece whose title comes from a Madison man who heard him speak, "We Need The Oil, Right?  So What's The Problem?"  "Decades from now it will all seem a no-brainer," notes Linda McQuaig in It's the Crude, Dude.  He adds, "It will seem to obvious as to provoke little more than a yawn.  I heard McGovern speak in Lake Forest, IL in 2006, mostly about torture. See much more on the Torture issue.

Clarence Page tended to stay clear of Iraq issues for most of 2005.  But his "Declare victory and then start packing up" of August 28 refers to recent Newsweek polls showing 61% disapprove of the President's handling of the war.

"The question, then, is not whether to leave but when and how?  Leaving too soon would be a dishonorable abandonment of our good-faith commitment to the Iraqi people.  Staying too long, however, could make bad matters worse."  The Chicago Tribune syndicated columnists feels that our experience suggest that "our well-intentioned efforts to keep Iraq united and give equal importance to the interest of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds actually has encouraged those factions to make even bigger demands on us and the nation-building process...Bush's references to this country's constitutional process leave out the harsh reality that the process eventually had to be settled by our own Civil war.  It is hard to imagine any outside power that could have helped our founding fathers prevent that catastrophe."

Another compelling piece, this one from mid-late August 2003, comes from William Pfaff, frequent writing for the International Herald Tribune.  (See Pfaff and other columnists' pre-war views).
He feels that the outcome of the U.S. being "defeated" is assured.

\William Raspberry of the Washington Post concluded 2004 with his "Occupation Hazards."  He quotes from Yaron Brook who is president of the Ayn Rand Institute.  Brook argues, according to Raspberry that "our problem in Iraq is not the questionable loyalty of Iraqi solders too hastily thrown into action, not our own overextended and under equipped, troops, not the failure of the intentional community to help us out, not even the faulty intelligence and the monumental hubris that got us Into Iraq in the fist place.  No it is America's moral cowardice.

Quoting Brook:  "The insurgency would have been crushed long ago, and [the] attack [in Mosul] averted, were it not for America's altruistic policy of placing the lives of Iraqi civilians above its own self-defense."   

Raspberry contributed "A Way Out of Iraq" as his first piece of 2005.  He wonders if it is time for America to leave Iraq?  Though there are down sides to U.S. pullout, he suggests we do so.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43489-2005Jan2?language=printer

Frank Rich, often writing in 2006 and 2007 in the Sunday Week in Review New York Times, was critical of the administration. "The Longer the War, the Larger the Lies" (9/16/06) provides his guidelines for when Cheney is lying. When he uses the phrase "the context in which" or "I haven't read the story" are key signals for Rich. The President said, "Iraq will be a strong ally in the war on terror." Replies Rich, "As is often the case, the president was technically truthful. Iraq will be a strong ally in the war on terror-just not necessarily our ally." Rich's December 3 piece on the Times op-ed page wondered about Bush's sense of reality. He is not only in a state of denial but "is completely untethered from reality. It's not that he can't handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn't know what the truth is."

In early December Rich wrote about "the sunshine boys" being overly optimistic(12/10/06). He believes that the good news "sunshine boys can't save Iraq" with the "way forward" new strategy. The President has "cut and run from reality...for nearly four years." Rumsfeld avoids using the "L" word, which is "lose" (not "liberal", as during Bush-Dukakis Presidential race) "even though lose is exactly what we've done. The illusion of not losing must be preserved no matter what the price in blood." ISG recommendations are "bogus" because they don't have teeth or are "completely unattainable." The ISG "isn't plotting a way forward but delaying the recognition of our defeat. Its real aim to to enact a charade of progress to pacify the public while Washington waits, no doubt in vain, for Mr. Bush to return to the real world." Rich already knows what Bush's new policy will be no matter how many "reviews...He will stay the course, with various fake-outs along the way to keep us from thinking we've 'lost,' until the whole mess is deposited in the lap of the next president....The antagonists in Iraq are not about to take a recess while we celebrate Christmas."

Rich's long pieces of 2007, often critical of Bush, included "Operation Freedom From Iraqis" (5/27/07) in which he opens by looking at the goals of the war. "When all else fails, those pious American who conceived and directed the Iraq war fall back on moral self-congratulation:: at least we brought liberty and democracy to an oppressed people. But that last-ditch rationalization has now become America's sorriest self-delusion in this tragedy." Who is to blame now? The war's "dead-enders are pinning the fiasco on the Iraqis themselves." Two million have left Iraq and two million more are displaced inside the country, which totals 15% of the population. Iraq's child survival rate is "falling faster than any other nation's. One Iraqi in eight is killed by illness or violence by the age of 5...To admit that Iraqis are voting with their feet is to concede that American policy is in ruins. A 'secure' Iraqi is a mirage, and worse, those who can afford to leave are the very professional s who might have helped build one. Thus the president says nothing about Iraq's humanitarian crisis, the worst in the Middle East since 1948, much as he tried to hide the American death toll...by keeping the troops' coffins off-camera and staying away from military funerals." We keep the plight of Iraqis out of sight by not letting them come to the US. Only 69 have come in the past 7 months. See more on immigration and refugees in "Are the People Better Off?" FAQ.

As with our resistance to Jewish immigration during World War II, Rich feels that "Like the Jews, Iraqis are useful scapegoats" with the new policy being not "cut and run" and "blame and run." As Rumsfeld wrote last fall, Iraqis might ""have to pull up their socks, step up and take reasonability for their country.'" Adds columnist Krauthammer, "Iraq in their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war." Rich feels the message is, "These ungragteful losers deserve everything that's coming to them...The American-Iraqi shotgun marriage of convenience, midwifed by disastrous Bush foeign policy, has disintegated into the marriage from hell." Our UN Ambassodor, John Bolton, feels we have given them what they need and says, "'I don't htink we have an olbigiatn to comensate for the harships of war.'"

In June 2005, The Progressive editor Matthew Rothschild continued his consistent criticism of the war.  Quoting the recent Post/ABC poll that "nearly three quarter of Americans say the number of casualties...is unacceptable", Rothschild concludes, "The real question now, for our supposed democracy, is how long will it take for our govern to get us out of this war that the people now disapprove of.  That lag time will be a true measure of unresponsiveness."

In November as the President contemplated McCain's request for 20,000 more troops, Rothschild wondered what good it would do to send more troops, in "What's 20,000 more troops going to accomplish?"

Dawn Turner Trice writes for the Chicago Tribune.  Her pre-Memorial Day 2005 column was entitled "Iraq war alters perceptions of Memorial Day."  She concludes the Metro Section piece, "Though I've continued to support our troops, my flag [put up after 9/11] eventually came down as 9/11 became more of a reason for entering the Iraq war.  Unfortunately, what will be most memorable may not be the soldiers who have died valiantly in this war, but how foolish we were to enter it."

In the Metro section of the Chicago Tribune, Trice writes of Iraq from time to time.  Seeing the Rove CIA leak of July 2005 as a "sideshow" to the bigger story, she is considering printing T-shirts that say, "It's the war, stupid!"

Trice adds, "The war continues to raise the question of whether, as the Downing Street  Memo says, 'intelligence and facts were fixes around the policy.' No Iraqi election or constitution, or Saddam Hussein conviction should ever shake our resolve to obtain the answer to that question...It doesn't matter that the assertions that Iraq was amassing WMD's have been proved unfounded.  It doesn't' matter that here has been no connection...to 9/11.  The administration has taken a 'that's my story and I'm sticking to it' stance that's bordering on shameful.  But the market of this war hasn't happened without the media and the public being willing consumers....We can't forget that this war also had been effectively marked because of what has been hidden from view:  the bodies of our soldiers retuning home in their flag-draped coffins.  The administration isn't unfamiliar with questionable marketing tactics.  We've seen 'journalist's getting paid a lot of money to plug Bush' initiatives.  We've seen fake 'journalists' given entree to presidential  news conferences to lob the easy question.  But when it comes to the war, the truth shouldn't be glossed over or distorted to fit into sound bites."  

Other columnists writing against the war:

Eugene Robinson opined in the Post after the NSA spying revelations.  His "Imperial Assumptions" (12/20/05) opened, "It seems that the Imperial Presidency has been restored," referring to Nixon.  He quotes the current President, "I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens."  Adds Robinson, "And, obviously, his certainty trumps all of our doubts."  He sees a patterns of behavior.  "The president invokes Sept. 11 to foreclose debate about Iraq, about torture, about secret prisons, and now, about electronic surveillance of American citizens." 

Jonathan Schell wrote often of the war before it began.  His November 24, 2005 piece, "The Fall of the One-Party Empire" focuses on his favorite topic, empire.  "The choice was and remains: empire or republic?  Just a few years ago the 'sole superpower,' the new Rome, master of the 'unipolar' world, seemed to many to be bestriding the globe. Some, like columnist Charles Krauthammer, were reveling in the triumph of 'the American hegemon.' 'History has given you an empire, if you will keep it,' he said, traducing Benjamin Franklin, who had said at the Constitutional Convention that the US was a republic if you can keep it."  Schell continued, "The imperial dreams are in ruins...a world of fancy and fraud has been exploded by facts...As happened in the Vietnam era, the war came home...The failed empire, in the shape of its failed war, has driven down the President's support to the point at which others, cowed until now, feel free to attack him." 

An op-ed piece from the summer of 2003 came from Fareed Zakaria.  "Why Kerry Is Right About Iraq" both criticizes and complements the Democratic candidate.  The piece asks a series of questions:

"Did the U.S. have to go to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their job?  Did it have to junk the UN process?  Did it have to invade with insufficient troops to provide order and stability in Iraq?  Did it have to occupy a foreign country with no cover of legitimacy from the world community?  Did it have to ignore the State Department's postwar planning?  Did it have to pack the Iraqi Governing Council with unpopular exiles, disband the army and engage in radical de-Baathification?  Did it have to spend a fraction of the money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction--and have that be mired in charges of corruption and favoritism?  Was all this an inevitable consequences of dealing with the problem of Saddam Hussein?" 

In addition to all of the above regular columnists who were against the war, other opinion pieces came from many sources.  In January 2005, an op-ed piece commented on President Bush's second inaugural, "The Speech Misheard Round the World."  Orland Patterson, professor of Sociology at Harvard and author of books on culture and freedom, examined 9/11 and syllogisms.  "The stratagem began immediately after 9/11 with the president's claims that the terrorist attacks were a deliberate assault on American's freedom.  The next stage of the argument came after no WMD were found...thus eliminating the reason for the war, and it took the form of a bogus syllogism:  all terrorists are tyrants who hate freedom.  Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who hates freedom.  Therefore [he] is a terrorist who downfall was a victory in the war against terrorism.  When this bogus syllogism began to lose public appeal, it was shored up with another flawed argument that was repeated during the campaign:  tyranny breeds terrorism.  Freedom is opposed to tyranny.  Therefore the promotion of freedom is the best means of fighting terrorism.  Promoting freedom, of course, is a noble and highly desirable pursuit.  If America were to make the global diffusion of freedom a central pillar of its foreign policy, it would be cause for joy.  The way the present administration has gone about this task, however, is likely to have the opposite effect."

USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote in his paper on August 12, criticizing the President for not going to any funerals.  Amphibious vehicles (in which 14 marines were killed the previous week) are being "misused because, nearly 2 1/2 years after we invaded Iraq, we still don't have enough heavily armored transport vehicles.  Some solder themselves make 'hillbilly armor' out of sand bags and scrap metal...No effective overall war plan...No exit strategy.  That's why the best way to support our troops...is to insist that Bush bring them all home.  Alive.  Sooner rather than later." 

The paper ran a brief counter-opinions from the National Commander of the American Legion, whose group "does not question the president, the Congress, or our military leaders in their support of our men and women under arms.  The best way for the US to w3in this war is to encourage Americans to be united behind our leaders and troops." 

Nobel playwright Harold Pinter accepted his prize in early December.  His speech, according to the Times, turned into "a furious how of outrage against American foreign policy, saying that the US had ... lied to justify waging war."  He accused the US of torture and labeled the invasion "a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law"  He called on Blair to appear before an international criminal court.

David Corn is a frequent political contributor to The Nation. His rare Chicago Tribune commentary came after the resignation of Karl Rove in August 2007. "Rove helped Bush start a war, and now hundreds of thousands of American GIs (and millions of Iraqi civilians) have no choice but to live with the consequences of that decision. Why should Rove be allowed to bug out early [to spend more time with his family]? Wouldn't all the men and women enmeshed in the Iraqi debacle like to spend more time with their families." A student of US literature, Corn quotes from The Great Gatsby on Tom and Daisy: "'They were careless people...they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back to their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was the kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they have made'...but with Bush, he recklessly steered this county into a war in Iraq that has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and that has ruined the US's reputation abroad. Bush, Rover, Dick Cheney...sold the war to the public with bad information and blatant misrepresentations."

Fareed Zakaria, whose Post American World I read in the fall of 2008, wrote in Newsweek in late October, during the economic crisis. The Indian-born journalist feels that ever since the collapse of the USSR, the US has "operated in the world with no contain or check on its power. This has not been good for its foreign policy. It has made Washington arrogant, lazy and careless. Its decision making has resembled GM's business strategy in the 1970s and 1980s, a process driven largely by a vast array of internal factors but little sense of urgency or awareness of outside pressures. We didn't have to make strategic choices; we could have it all. We could make blunders, anger the world, rupture alliances, waste resources wage war incompletely--it didn't matter. We had more than enough room for error--lots of error."