LIED IN? LIED OUT?

By Edwin Cooney

I devoutly wish I had thought of this myself, but I heard the following point made by a political observer yesterday during a discussion about the forthcoming 2008 presidential campaign.

Asserting, as most people do these days, that we were lied into the Iraqi war by the Bush administration, this observer suggested that we could be lied out of it by well-meaning but ambitious Democrats. Strangely enough, that thought, in all its stark clarity, hadn’t occurred to me before. However, when you think about it, such a possibility makes sense. Just as a nation can be lied into a policy, it can be lied out of that policy as well. After all, the pain in many of our hearts over the destruction and death we’ve caused the innocent civilians of a nation that has never invaded or done us any harm, may cause us to lie, deny, or even mythologize our way out of Iraq.

As Lady Hillary leads a pack of dissatisfied Democrats toward the nomination, the overwhelming consensus of their “progressive/liberal” backers favors a complete American military withdrawal from Iraq before—if possible—but certainly by the spring of 2009 under a new Democratic administration.

As historians will no doubt observe in twenty or thirty years, the devil to the solution of the war in Iraq will have been found in the details. The main purpose of an American pullout would of course be to lessen tension within Iraq. This would then solidify the current government so that it could not be swamped by Al-Qaida or pro-Iranian forces which might use Iraq’s rich petroleum resources as the source of its possible military reprisal against us.

It’s reasonable to assume that a nervous Iraqi government will be looking to the world community for support if it can’t find sufficient support for its existence at home. One of the sad ironies of President Bush’s tenure in the White House is that right after the 9/11 Al-Qaida attack on us he could have asked the world for just about anything America needed in order to sustain practically any purpose or goal we sought and he would have received it. However, after he flaunted world opinion in favor of his own determination to run our foreign policy according to the neocon membership of PNAC (Project for A New American Century), it appears that the world community’s mood or inclination has swung almost completely in the opposite direction.

Thus, it may be the first task of the next administration, even if it is headed by Rudolph Giuliani, to call for an international peacekeeping force to substitute for American troops and corporations in Iraq. Even should such an endeavor proceed smoothly enough, it’s still likely that more American lives may well be sacrificed during whatever extended period of time is required to bring about such a transfer of leadership.

It was thus discomforting for some when Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards suggested during one of the interminable Democratic presidential debates last Wednesday night that a residual military striking force might be required in the region until 2013. Such suggestions almost always make idealistic voters exceedingly nervous and even cynical. Prior to taking the helm of national responsibility, a presidential candidate has the luxury of sympathizing with the heartfelt anxieties of his or her ideological constituency. However, any potential leader who totally surrenders to that inclination just to please rather than to educate his or her supporters risks a loss of their essential integrity once it comes time to report to the people from the great height of the presidential lectern.

Hence the rub. Even the most sincerely idealistic president must come to terms with the broken world he or she inherits. It is from the height of that high and mighty office that its occupant, formerly a mere citizen, now must face and cope with the world situation created by the inclinations and actions of an imperfect predecessor.

There is also the recent history of our presidential leadership. Some will remind us that back in 1968, Americans looked to a new party and president to get us out of the continuing and nightmarish Vietnam conflict. They got Richard Nixon and a continuation of that war’s death and destruction. Even so, history, I believe, demonstrates the inclinations and the solutions of previous generations seldom fit with the situation of today.

Forty years ago, the lessons of World War II determined the foreign policy guidelines followed by our national leadership:

Never be cowed by a brutal dictator;
Challenge rather than appease dictators and you’ll avoid war;
Military strength and moral vigor are the only sure antidotes to war.

We, of course, can’t afford to completely abandon these principals, as they do have a place in responsible international assessment. However, it seems to me that the above principles should be accompanied by the lessons of some even more recent experiences.

Mr. Nixon used to assure us that we would lose all of our credibility in world affairs should we abandon South Vietnam to Communist adventurism. However, less than five years after our frantic departure from our embassy roof in Saigon, both Israel and Egypt warmly and even hungrily accepted President Jimmy Carter’s assistance in creating a peace settlement which has lasted nearly thirty years. This was possible in large part because both Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat felt understood and acknowledged by the United States of America. Lesson: one commands respect and power as president when demonstrating a thorough understanding of the realities of others’ existence.

President Ronald Reagan, though personally furious over the shooting down of Korean Flight 007 on September 1st, 1983, over Sakhalin Island in Soviet territory only went so far in his response. On September 15th, he revoked Aeroflot’s permit to fly in and out of American cities--a ban which lasted until April 29th,1986. Additionally, he deliberately embarrassed the Soviets in the United Nations. Still, there was no further loss of life beyond that of the passengers and crew of Flight 007. Lesson: The measured response even to international barbarism is the most effective type of response;

President George H. W. Bush built a mighty and genuine coalition of Middle Eastern nations supported by Japan, Great Britain and others to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Lesson: realistically identify the legitimate ambitions and fears of those affected by the crisis which you consider important enough to involve the treasury and lives of the American people.

As I see it, giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt even in the wake of testimony that our March 2003 invasion was being planned in 9/11’s advance, Iraq is the result of our knee jerk reaction to Al Qaida’s attack on the World Trade Center. Lesson: even when you find yourself outrageously victimized, don’t allow your response to create a civil war that your own people will be forced to pay for with too many of their young lives.

Thus the question: If we were lied into Iraq, isn’t it all right if we’re lied out of a situation we never should have been in?

Answer: Absolutely not. A lie creates harmful conditions or circumstances in both personal and international relations which otherwise wouldn’t exist. While it’s certainly true that some of our most capable leaders have been capable liars, those lies have always damaged rather than enhanced their reputations as well as causes. Insofar as I am aware, no successful historic venture has been predicated on a lie. If we allow our fears to dominate our capacity to wisely and realistically view the world as it is rather than as we fearfully see it, we will indeed be vulnerable to any or everyone’s persuasive deception.

As for the likelihood of being lied out of as we were lied into Iraq, I think it’s remote. But as remote as it is, it does bear watching.

My guess is that the best place to begin watching for our vulnerability to being lied out of Iraq is within our individual selves.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY