Progressives love to rewrite history, because the past interferes with their goal of shaping the future. Conservatives must not allow them to do it. In days and weeks to come, there will be much talk by progressives about morally relevant differences between Iraq and Libya. Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 will claim that military intervention in Libya in 2011 is relevantly different, which will allow them to support the intervention without contradicting themselves.
Among other things, they will claim that Barack Obama's goal is humanitarian in nature, whereas George W. Bush's goal was to rid Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. Leave aside the fact that this difference militates in favor of the invasion of 2003 rather than against it. Progressives conveniently ignore the fact that it was widely believed, by both high-ranking Republicans and high-ranking Democrats, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion. An action is to be judged by what was believed by the actor at the time of the action, or at least by what it was reasonable to believe; it is not to be judged by what was in fact the case.
Here is President Bush's speech of 19 March 2003. Note the two stated rationales for the invasion:
- To disarm Iraq.
- To liberate the Iraqi people.
The second rationale is mentioned four times: (a) "to free its [Iraq's] people"; (b) "helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country"; (c) to "restore control of that country [Iraq] to its own people"; (d) to "bring freedom to others." Liberation was hardly an afterthought and cannot plausibly be said to be a pretext for invading on other grounds. (Why is disarming Hussein not the pretext?)
Do not let progressives rewrite history.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 