Victor Davis Hanson "Nothing Succeeds Like Success" on the Bandwagon Effect in War

[jordan179]

In my study of military and diplomatic history, I have noticed that one often-important factor, both in public perception and sometimes even in the reality of a conflict, is the "bandwagon effect," which is to say: "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan

Comments

Ristin's LIES (by his own standard of "lie")

[jordan179]

Saddam opposed AQ ...

No, he didn't. He didn't allow Al Qaeda to operate on a major level in Iraq, but he did shelter Abdul Rahman Yasin and allow in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Sheltering Yasin, one of the architects of the 1993 WTC bombing, and allowing in al-Zarqawi (which occurred after our invasion of Afghanistan and thus after 9-11) were both acts of war against America.

... Saddam had no WMD ...

Probably correct, though practically everyone in the world believed that he did.

... Iraq did not sponsor terrorism ...

Untrue. Saddam paid cash bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Israel. I do not buy the notion that terroristic attacks on Israel somehow aren't "really" terrorism.

... had no hand in 9/11.

Probably true, but then we never claimed that he had.

What started out as a good and necessary act to prevent an imminent threat turned out to be...a totally unwarranted invasion of a sovereign nation.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was in violation of pretty much every single term of the truce between signing it and being invaded, from January 1991 to April 2003 -- a span of over twelve years. That, by itself, was warrant for our invasion. And it was one of the causes that Bush gave for the war.

Ristin Isn't Really A Liar

[jordan179]

... I only said that to point out that you're setting a standard of omniscience for President Bush :)

From memory it's actually implied in a state of the union speech (that Iraq supported terrorists "like those who attacked us on 9/11")

Well, and indeed Saddam did support such terrorists. Not, with the few exceptions I mentioned, the very same group (Al Qaeda) that attacked us on 9-11, but that's not what "like" means -- "like" means "similar in some important characteristic to."

At the time that really got going I was more concerned with pointing out "it's a sand box and Saddam had months of warning while the UN delayed, ya-think he might have buried the WMD somewhere or snuck them across the borders?"

I'm still not sure where the truth lies on "snuck them across the borders," since there is the issue of the mysterious truck convoys to Syria just before the outbreak of the war. Until there is a Civilized regime in Syria -- which I devoutly hope to live to see someday -- we may never know. Saddam himself may have taken the secret to the grave, where the Iraqi end is concerned -- I wouldn't want to have insured the lives of the poor fools he had drive those convoys.

You are ignoring the fact that Saddam was in violation of pretty much every single term of the truce between signing it and being invaded, from January 1991 to April 2003 -- a span of over twelve years. That, by itself, was warrant for our invasion. And it was one of the causes that Bush gave for the war.

That's the legal reason. NOT the reason the US public were galvanized for war.

Then how is the war "illegal" and "unjustified" and we suddenly become the "bad guys" for invading Iraq? I will point out that the flow of popular opinion instead follows my and VDH's bandwagon theory, in that support for the war is now rising once more, and this is not due to any changes in the proven validity of the causes for it.

Saddam's Suicidal Bluff

[jordan179]

didn't actually blame Bush. Somewhere between the intel agency and the press conference the message got muddled. These claims were stated as facts by multiple people on multiple occasions. Not just Bush. So, who screwed up and why? If it was just Bush doing some improv on stage someone would have cut the mic'. If it was just Bush then people like Condi would have piped up and said "uh, wtf sir?".

No, I'm not saying that someone screwed up. I'm saying that Saddam Hussein deliberately gave the impression that he was concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction, as an intentional bluff; that, as part of this bluff, he probably leaked information giving that impression to espionage agencies: consequently, practically every intelligence agency and leader in the world assumed that he really did have WMD's. I'm saying that, given Saddam's refusal to allow rapid and reliable inspections (which, remember, were his obligation under the truce of 1991), there was no way for Bush to know that Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's, and that consequently stating that "Bush lied" is scapegoating, pure and simple.

Why would Saddam have embarked on a course that would lead, ultimately, to his own overthrow and execution? Absolute certainity has died with him, but I'd make two points in this regard:

1) Saddam had a habit, in his career, of underestimating the strength and resolve of his enemies. He launched the Iran-Iraq War in 1979 convinced that he could overrun Iranian defenses in a matter of months and force them to sue for peace; he launched the Kuwait War in 1990 certain that America would not come to Kuwait's defense; he then refused to back down on Kuwait, certain that America would not actually attack his forces; finally, he refused to obey the truce terms from 1991 to 2003, certain that America would never invade him in response. He was wrong each time, and the last time it got him killed.

2 Saddam could not have predicted (unless he really did back it, which would have made him even more of a villain and a fool) 9-11, and its effect on the American willingness to tolerate misdeeds by Terrorist States. 9-11 doomed Saddam, because it turned what at the time seemed like a safe defiance of America into a suicidal defiance of America. Having said that, it was also Saddam's mistake not to become more compliant in response to 9-11: in fact, he seems to have become more defiant, ending any chance that Bush would turn his attention to a different Terrorist State (Bush had two other obvious and several more inobvious potential targets).

Anyway there is an immense difference between saying "Iraq might have WMD" or "we are worried Iraq may have WMD" and someone saying "we have credible evidence Iraq has stockpiled WMD". If you claim to know, and claim to have proof...but don't have proof or know for sure, that is a lie.

"Credible evidence" is not the same thing as being sure. One can rarely be sure in matters of military intelligence -- even a defector or mole may actually be a double agent! In fact, we did have evidence from both -- who in retrospect, may have been plants by Saddam. (The story of his son-in-law's defection, return and murder always struck me as more than a little bit fishy!)

I agree with your point about the legal and (popular) moral reasons for the war being separate (personally, I feel that defending truce terms and liberating the victims of tyranny are more than enough reasons to go to war with a weaker foe). However, I suggest that this is an example of attitudes changing with apparent success, failure, and success again on the battlefield.

In particular, this does not explain why now (when we have not found any more traces of WMD) the war is suddenly becoming more popular again. That is explicible primarily in terms of bandwagon effects.

Re: Saddam had no WMD

[carbonelle]

Of course not. The whole point of a pre-emptive war is to pre-empt the arrival of nukes. I was initially opposed to the invasion of Iraq because I believed Saddam had nukes and would use them when cornered.

Saddam had active WMD programs. We have found facilities for making pesticides where the granulations process was so fine that the actual pesticides made tended to jam the farmers' sprayers--but which would be perfect for mass-producing ricin, etc.

Gah. I've got to stop. This just makes me crazy.