There are some issues where a decision must have tenure. The decision sets circumstances in motion that have momentum and consequence. One cannot later just decide that the decision was a bad one and renounce it because that momentum will still exist and the consequences will continue to occur. This is true when a nation decides to go to war and that is just what happened when the U.S. Congress passed a law in 1998 stating that regime change in Iraq was state policy and again when it authorized the use of force to implement that change.

“The most powerful case for the war was made at the 2004 Republican convention by John McCain in a speech that was resolutely ‘realist.’ On the Democratic side, every presidential candidate running today who was in the Senate when the motion to authorize the use of force came up—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd—voted yes. Outside of government, the case for war was made not just by the neoconservative Weekly Standard
but—to select almost randomly—the traditionally conservative National Review, the liberal New Republic and the center-right Economist. Of course, most neoconservatives supported the war, the case for which was also being made by journalists and scholars from every point on the political spectrum… [Perhaps] the most influential tome on behalf of war was written not by any conservative, let alone neoconservative, but by Kenneth Pollack, Clinton’s top Near East official on the National Security Council. The title: ‘The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.’ Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.” —Charles Krauthammer (http://PatriotPost.US/opinion/entrylist.asp?source_id=48

The provenance leading to the war in Iraq as a front in the GWOT is long and involves its building by all of the major political parties. Yet now, there are those who attempt to disown their previous behavior and decisions, who attempt to separate themselves from a history in which they were a participant. This is a betrayal of themselves which is also a betrayal of their country and its citizens who delegated to them responsibility for conducting the affairs of state.

Comments are closed.