By Paul Krugman
Surprise! It turns out that thereâ€™s something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should have had a decade ago.
But many influential people â€” not just Mr. Bush â€” would prefer that we not have that discussion. Thereâ€™s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and itâ€™s about time that everyone admits it. Now letâ€™s move on.
A False Narrative
Well, letâ€™s not â€” because thatâ€™s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that itâ€™s false. The Iraq war wasnâ€™t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games â€” the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.
And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the warâ€™s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself â€” literally before the dust had settled â€” Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. â€œJudge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] …sweep it all up things related and notâ€; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeldâ€™s aide.
A War that was Wanted, Not Needed
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, â€œwere madeâ€ by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? Thatâ€™s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? Thatâ€™s because the war party didnâ€™t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Armyâ€™s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.
Why did they want a war? Thatâ€™s a harder question to answer. Some of the warmongers believed that deploying shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world. Some saw Iraq as a sort of pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes. And itâ€™s hard to avoid the suspicion that there was a strong element of wagging the dog, of using military triumph to strengthen the Republican brand at home.
Whatever the precise motives, the result was a very dark chapter in American history. Once again: We were lied into war.
Yes, Truth Matters!
Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesnâ€™t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more hesitant the reporting. And it doesnâ€™t get much bigger â€” indeed, more or less criminal â€” than lying America into war.
But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that itâ€™s still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bushâ€™s verbal stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved in concocting a false case for war.
So letâ€™s get the Iraq story right. Yes, from a national point of view the invasion was a mistake. But (with apologies to Talleyrand) it was worse than a mistake, it was a crime.Î¦
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as an Op-Ed columnist and continues as a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 27 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the â€œnew trade theory,â€ a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. At the same time, Mr. Krugman has written extensively for a broader public audience. In 2008, Mr. Krugman received the Nobel Prize in Economics. His column appears every Monday and Friday. Read his blog, The Conscience of a Liberal, and follow him on Twitter.