the real story behind why we went to war

‘Cause there was a mountain of reasons, that’s why, and those idiotic assholes thought all the reasons would become self-evident when everything was “over,” that’s why. And the bitter, hysterical, profoundly unsettling laugh is on us (those of us who knew it was necessary to topple Saddam and who hoped against hope that those criminally negligent shitballs in power would do the right thing).

What, you don’t like that explanation? Well then one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers has a rather nuanced one for you:

The fact is: we relied so heavily on the weapons of mass destruction argument because it was the easiest rung on which to hang our hat. Everyone knew that Iraq had stockpiles of at least chemical weapons. And once we got in there, who knows what we’d find on the biological weapon or nuclear weapon front? It wasn’t even a question in anyone’s minds, us or other foreign intelligence services. So we relied on that rationale, because it’s hard to make an argument that “we need to go in there and knock heads.” Even if that is what needs to be done.

Obviously, the strategy of relying on that justification was a horrible mistake. We’ve now lost total control of the narrative.

No kidding! Then the reader goes on to describe the stakes:

Walking into that bar is about demonstrating your power and credibility. If you get beat up, you’ve only demonstrated how weak you are, even if you are eventually victorious. If the sheriff manages to beat the local thugs into submission, but suffers a broken nose and cracked ribs and has to take the next few days off recuperating, then he’s lost all credibility both with both the thugs and the townsfolk.

This is basically the situation we are in now and why, instead of victory, we’re fighting for a narrow loss.

It’s so tiresome to find this nuanced, smart (reader’s) analysis on Sullivan’s blog followed by Sullivan going off, Savonarola-like, in hot pursuit of the evil in our midst.

When Dick Cheney looks weak, when he has made the U.S. look weak, we are in trouble. Weakness invites attack. If and when the next attack comes, Cheney’s failed strategy will be partly responsible. He hasn’t just undermined the soft power of the U.S. He has deeply undermined American hard power.

Not long ago it was Rumsfeld who was the Devil. Now that he’s gone, Cheney is the Devil. Who’s next? When Cheney goes, which Devil will Sullivan pursue? And will Hugo Chavez be invited to the hunt?