What Happened?

Byron York explores the YearlyKos convention and concludes the anti-war movement wasn't really anti-war, but rather anti-Bush.

It is pretty easy to draw this conclusion from the relative silence on the Left regarding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars since Obama took office. Especially because he not only continued the Bush policy in Iraq, but has expanded the theater in Afghanistan.

I'm not trying to be snippy about this issue, believe it or not. I am truly curious. What do all the "anti-war" people actually believe? There are a host of possibilities:

1. Cynical version. Anti-war folks were never really against the WOT in principle, rather, they saw them - especially the Iraq campaign - as a way to gain political power and exploited Bush's inability to articulate the good reasons for going into Iraq and the mishandling of the war from '04-'06 as a way to gain popular political support. I doubt many anti-war folks see themselves this way, however.

2. Given up version. At a certain point, understandably, the anti-war folks realized they lost the debate. They made a furious campaign against the Iraq War, but were unable to stop it. Efforts to undermine and criticize the effort were worthwhile, but after a certain point, they just gave up because "what's done is done," or "it's no use crying over spilt milk." This seems to me, quite an odd conclusion given than in 06 and 07, the anti-war movement reached it's fever pitch and similar logic applied. Further, with Obama in office, it seems as though the anti-war movement would have more support from those in political power and hence would benefit from a more aggressive campaign right now.

3. Changed Their Mind. There were a couple of moments in Iraq when the anti-war movement stopped and had the "holy-shit-was-George-Bush-right?" crisis of conscience. The first was when Uday and Qusay were dead and killed and we defeated the Republican Guard in a month. The second was when Saddam was captured. The third was when Iraqis first voted. The fourth was when Zarqawi was killed. And the last, and most recent, is the combined work of the surge and Sunni Awakening/Sons of Iraq movement gaining traction. Each one of these moments, however, was followed by later events that validated the original anti-war position. Looting. The rise of the insurgency. The kangaroo court that tried and executed Saddam. The near-civil war started after the Al Asqua Mosque was blown up by Zarqawi. And now, the wide-spread bribery that is the reason for the Sunnis no longer taking part in a widespread insurgency. As much as I would like this version to be true, I've yet to hear a single anti-war person actually mouth these words, so I don't think this is a cause of the silence.

4. It's More Complicated Than I Thought. Americans have learned a lot about the Arab Middle East over the past couple years. And they've learned there are no simple answers. Platitudes about Bush Lied, People Died, etc., have borne out much more complicated realities that really have nothing to do with America at all, but more about the internal politics of the Middle East. For instance, the Iraq War clearly emboldened and empowered Iran - but ironically - it emboldened BOTH the hardline theocrats and the more moderate elements of the Persian state. Now, both sides are squaring off and the battle for control of the state has little to do with America at all. This complexity also exists within the American political spectrum by the fact that many liberal democrats supported the initial invasion - Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Friedman, just to name a few - who then turned around on the issue when the war wasn't going so good. The theory here was that even if the war was a good idea, G Bush was such an incompetent executive, we weren't able to "pull it off." Per this logic, the surge wasn't supposed to work, but instead it did - at least marginally and better than the critics expected. Then, Bush signed a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government which set a withdrawal timetable prior to Obama taking office...in essence, pursuing the same type of course Obama would have taken, assuming he didn't want to make a radical statement about the war itself and do a dramatic pull out. And Obama has upheld this policy. In short, no one on either side has proven out to be correct about the details or the timeline. Thus, the anti-war folks (and the pro-war folks) are both a little bit more hesitant about their opinions and are more willing to take a wait-and-see attitude towards both Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish this version were true, but I don't think it is....

5. I Trust Obama But Not Bush. This logic is simple. If Obama does it, chances are it is good. If Bush does it, chances are it is bad. This logic here is so obviously flawed and so obviously stupid no one will admit to it...yet, I suspect this is the most likely actual explanation. People believe all sorts of stupid things and usually go off who they trust. Liberals trust Obama. This is dumb of course. No one should blindly trust politicians. Nevertheless, we treat politics like it was the NFL and it is perceived virtue to stay loyal to our team. I think this attitude is dumb, but it does provide an explanation for the relative silence. And it is because of this logic, I still don't take the anti-war crowd very seriously.