Part 10 of a retrospective series on why 1) the Iraq war was a bad idea, and 2) Jonah Goldberg is a putz.

Goldberg promotes the Burning Bush doctrine and again fails to see the practical and the big picture.

Goldberg next tries to salvage his claim that the war has not really been a mistake by saying the following:

Bush's critics claim that democracy promotion was an afterthought, a convenient rebranding of a war gone sour. I think that's unfair, but even if true, it wouldn't mean liberty isn't at stake. It wouldn't mean that promoting a liberal society in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world wouldn't be in our interest and consistent with our ideals. In war, you sometimes end up having to defend ground you wouldn't have chosen with perfect knowledge beforehand. That's us in Iraq.

The promotion of democracy was not an afterthought (as discussed below), but it definitely was a rebranding. And let me tell you, "rebranding" is such an appropriate term. This war was a sales job and PR campaign from the get go. As I previously pointed out, WMD was pushed as the reason for the war, the reason we just had take out Saddam. Right before the war, as the Bush administration knew that there was no evidence of WMD, there began to be little statements about freeing the Iraqi people, and that is when the rebranding began. As the war began to "turn sour" and the truth about WMD could no longer be concealed, the PR image became more about spreading democracy. Moreover, as discussed on August 29, 2004, Wolfowitless disclosed that WMD was chosen as the #1 public justification for the war because that was the only reason upon which everyone in the Bush administration agreed. He did not even mention promoting democracy. In fact he gave four reasons, and only the third one--freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam--comes close to promoting democracy. About that third reason, Wolfowitless said, "The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it." Here was my response:

Wait a minute...Wasn't this war called "Operation Iraqi Freedom?" So the Bush Administration named this war for something that was not worth risking American lives? Now I'm really confused. Well, there is one thing about which I am not confused. Once no WMD were found, and once it became impossible to ignore the lack of evidence of Iraqi ties to 9-11 or Al Qaeda, the Bush administration decided to make this war all about liberating the Iraqi people. This is a prime example of how the Bush administration has been dishonest. As the other reasons for going to war were exposed as incorrect, these "leaders" increasingly claimed that the war was justified for a reason that they felt was never worth risking American lives.

Later, I concluded that spreading democracy probably was the real reason for the war. As I said on May 15, 2005,

I remember hearing a news report about three weeks before the war in which someone said that the people calling the shots (that means the Department of Defense) truly believed that getting rid of Saddam via force would cause democracy to spread throughout the Middle East. My reaction was that these people were truly delusional. I mean around the bend, over the edge in-freaking-sane. I simply did not believe that that could possibly be the reason for going to war.

I still can't believe it. However, Goldberg appears to be a true believer. And I think he just bought a ticket to out where the buses don't run. Goldberg says he believes that "promoting a liberal society in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world" will further American interests, and thus the Iraq war was not really a mistake after all.

Take the blue pill, Jonah. [There is an explanation of this line in the comments.]

Goldberg is trying to apply the Burning Bush doctrine (spreading democracy, freedom on the march, etc.) as a justification for the Iraq war and the reason we cannot leave (and the reason why the "antiwar crowd" is wrong). That doctrine was fully put forth in Bush's second inaugural address on January 20, 2005. I have written extensively about this doctrine, beginning with America's new calling. That post contains explanations about how the doctrine is logistically unrealistic and impractical, will cause us problems in relations with countries such as Russia and China, sets us up to be big time hypocrites, sets impossibly high standards, and will produce results that are contrary to our interests (which is precisely what has happened in Palestine, Lebanon, and for that matter Iraq).

Now I know what some of you are thinking: 1) the Burning Bush doctrine was not announced until 2005, meaning my criticisms of the doctrine do not apply to knowing beforehand that the Iraq war was a bad idea, and 2) those criticisms are general in nature and do not apply to Iraq. Well, as shown above, Bush was citing the spread of democracy as the reason for the war as it was beginning. Also, the general criticisms of the Burning Bush doctrine were just as valid before the war, and time has shown that the Iraq war has harmed the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This harm is discussed in Freedom is on the march...or is it? Also, the exercise of democracy in the Middle East has actually hurt American interests. One of the sections of America's new calling is entitled "The 'be careful what you ask for' problem," wherein I said "a true democracy could very well result in a government 'by the people and of the people' that is anti-American." We asked for democracy in the Middle East, and it resulted in anti-American groups coming to legitimate power--Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon (see The Burning Bush doctrine and the Palestinian election, Follow up on the Burning Bush doctrine and the Palestinian election, and Hamas--who knew? Well, the Bush administration should have known). Both of those results were predictable and foreseeable. Bush and his supporters--like Goldberg--instead thought that "democracy" would be some sort of magical formula which would automatically transform the Middle East into a pro-American haven.

This was a delusional vision from the outset, including before the Iraq war. And yet Goldberg claims that there was no way to know this before the war, meaning that we had "[im]perfect knowledge beforehand."

What a putz.

And now we are having to defend ground that we knew or should have known we should not have chosen in the first place. That is us in Iraq.

Up next: Goldberg's proposed solution.