Supporting a war for political reasons indefensible

12/23/07
With our good friend Joe Lieberman back in the news, it seems as good a time as any to go over again just what it is people find so disagreeable about him.
No, it’s not the fact that he endorsed a Republican, John McCain, for president. “Independent” is not the same as “unpredictable,” and this move shocked no one. If he’d endorsed anyone else — say, a Democrat — that would have been a surprise.
He’s been tacking to the right for years now, and stands with McCain at the furthest extreme of the “all war all the time” right wing. But he wouldn’t dare take that final step and switch parties. As a Republican, he’s nobody. As a Democrat (or whatever he’s calling himself these days), he gets on TV all the time for bashing his fellow party members, saying they don’t have what it takes to defend America or some such nonsense.
Republicans who attack Democrats don’t make news, and don’t get invited on Sunday morning talk shows. Joe isn’t giving up his pulpit anytime soon.
But the McCain endorsement did bring to mind the No. 1 defense of Joe supporters from last year’s Senate primary. It’s only one issue, people said. I’m not with him on the war, but he’s been good in other areas.
As though this five-years-and-counting nightmare in Iraq could be so easily dismissed, like it was a position on the estate tax. This war, where tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. troops have been killed, where we made every country in the world think twice about ever helping us again, where we’ve put our grandchildren into debt, where we’ve taken our eye off the place where the people who attacked us were actually based — that can be dismissed as “one issue”?
The war is the issue. Nothing else is close.
It’s also true that, had Lieberman gotten his way, our military would be well into Iran by now. How disappointed he must have been at the news they weren’t so scary after all.
War opponents have been told that we have to acknowledge the progress that’s been made in Iraq these past few months. And it’s true — what was once a truly hellish situation can now be labeled, maybe, “awful” or just “disastrous.” In any war, given years of ethnic cleansing and sectarian killings, violence will eventually fall. There are fewer people left to kill.
Today, even with reduced violence, Western journalists are unable to roam freely the streets of the capital. It’s too dangerous. When an American can take an unprotected stroll through the streets of the capital, then I’ll start to believe things have changed.
Lieberman led the charge into Iraq, and John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were falling all over themselves to join him. It seemed, at the time, the right thing to do politically. Democrats have to prove they aren’t soft on defense, after all.
But if it was right politically, it was wrong in every other way. And it’s why I’ll have to think hard before voting for anyone (Chris Dodd included) who supported this disaster, regardless of where they stand now.
I look at it this way: If I, as some nobody with no Washington connections and no expertise, could tell the Bush team was pushing a line on Iraq, then so could anyone else. Yes, they used some good tricks, but the holes in the “We must attack now” argument were big enough to fly a Black Hawk through.
There was no sign this country was in danger. There was nothing to the much-desired Sept. 11 link. They didn’t even try to pretend the Iraqi military posed a threat. And as far as the whole “freeing the Iraqi people” routine, I figured as long as we were willing to invade North Korea, Congo, Burma, Zimbabwe, Haiti, etc., as soon as we were done in Iraq, then that argument might have some merit. But selective outrage at bad dictators who happen to sit atop huge oil reserves did not seem like something worth supporting.
The argument isn’t that I had any special foresight that this might turn out badly. It’s that I refuse to believe that Lieberman, Clinton, Edwards, Chris Shays and all the rest didn’t know it as well. For whatever reason, and I’m sure there were many, they decided to support it anyway.
Without Democratic support, it would have been infinitely harder to get the war George Bush so badly wanted. But instead of offering up even token resistance, most party leaders convinced themselves they were making the right move. These are not politicians worth anyone’s support.
As for Lieberman, I’m happy he’s pushing for better gas mileage in SUVs. That’s wonderful. It comes nowhere near making up for the damage he’s done.

Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor at the Connecticut Post. You can reach him at 203-330-6233 or via e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.