Pseudoregrets

Another year, another anniversary of the Iraq invasion, and another dreary round of self-justifications from so-called liberals for having supported it. Glenn Greenwald discusses the drivel that came out of a Slate series of articles by the usual pundits and comes to a sad conclusion:

[N]ot a single one of them appears to have learned the real lesson worth learning from the whole disaster: The U.S. should not—and has no right to—invade, bomb and occupy other nations that haven’t attacked or even threatened to attack us. None of them say: “Wars that aren’t directly in response to an actual or imminent attack shouldn’t be commenced because doing so leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of human beings for no justifiable reason.” Not even the most regretful war advocate seems to have reached that conclusion.

As long as the root premises of our endless war-fighting remain firmly in place, there will be many more Iraqs, “justified” by similar or only marginally different objectives. We need to invade to remove a Bad Government, or stop a civil religious or ethnic war, or prevent mistreatment by other ruling factions of their citizens, etc. etc.—as though we possess the ability and are blessed with sufficiently magnanimous, selfless political leaders to accomplish any of those lofty goals with military invasions of other countries.

As for me, I can’t really improve on what I said on the third anniversary of this tragic debacle, which echoes Glenn’s point: I would have been against the invasion even if it had succeeded—or rather, especially if it succeeded. As damaging as this episode in our history has been, there is a decent chance we will recover, more or less—if we come to our senses. The damage would have been much greater if our unprovoked, arrogant incursion had enjoyed immediate and relatively painless “success.” As some “regretful” pundits have pointed out (ruefully!), our lack of success in Iraq has made it all the more unlikely that other countries will support a US attack on some other country worthy of our well-meaning (of course!) “corrective action”—for instance, Iran (a more obvious enemy could not be imagined!). Talk about lessons not learned.

Not that the lack of international approval would stop some people (after all, it didn’t stop them from perpetrating—or cheering on—the Iraq invasion). They puff themselves up with the idea they are cogs, big or small, in “The World’s Sole Superpower.” They think this gives them license to do whatever they please, literally (as political poobahs) or vicariously (as keyboard commandos). There’s a word for such people, and the word is “bully.” Those who did not want the US to have its way in Iraq are branded “defeatists.” It’s a good word. I accept it. Doesn’t hurt a bit. I admit I like it when bullies lose. Sorry if you happen to be a one, or sympathize with them. Gosh, it really, really pains me when I hurt a bully’s feelings.

I’ll reserve my sincere sympathy for the people who have truly suffered physical harm at the hands of The World’s Sole Superbully, and will continue to suffer, both here and in Iraq. And the huge financial burden working Americans will bear for decades to come will be appropriate, though not compensatory, penance for allowing it to happen. It matters not that you were against it, or were not even born yet. You will pay.

Addendum 2008.03.24: Tom Tomorrow, on the other hand, gives us “regrets” from the neocons at the five-year mark.