Unintended consequence #32

The Bush administration and its fellow travelers keep beating the drum of beneficent consequences from Iraq. The American invasion, occupation, and restructuring of that nation will result in a shining city on a hill, a republic whose example will influence the entire Middle East. Democracy will come raining down like manna from heaven. That’s Bush’s last, best rationale for his war. Without the promised weapons of mass destruction, without any substantial link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda, the “Iraq as model democracy” goal is all that he has left. The extent to which Iraq falls short of that goal will determine the precise extent of Bush’s failure.

That’s not to say that invading Iraq will produce no consequences at all. We should be so lucky. Instead of “Iraq as model democracy,” try “Iraq as rallying point and recruiting station for al Qaeda and its fellow travelers.” Try “Iraq as newest Shiite-governed state.” Or “Iraq as battleground between Shiites and Kurds.” And that’s just inside the country itself. Juan Cole points to unintended consequences of Bush’s Iraq policy in neighboring Iran:

It seems to me very likely that Iran will get a nuclear weapon. Any ruling elite in the global south with bad relations with the US can look at the difference between how the Bush administration dealt with Saddam and how it has dealt with North Korea. The difference seems mainly to be that North Korea already had a couple of nukes, whereas Iraq was not anywhere close. So Khamenei would look at that and decide that his government needs a couple of nukes to avoid being overthrown by the US, especially since Bush telegraphed his intention to do just that. I don’t see how it could be stopped militarily; the US is overstretched and in no position to attack and occupy Iran.

This is the point that Senator Edward M. Kennedy made on Tuesday at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

But I would emphasize the ways in which Bush’s aggressiveness have probably actually ramped up any Iranian nuclear weapons program, out of which the Iranians might have been argued under different circumstances.

The ability to see down the road, to anticipate the consequences of far-reaching actions, is something we would demand even of a local selectman, let alone the president of the United States. Bush either lacks this capacity or doesn’t care to exercise it. His now-famous response to Bob Woodward, recounted in Plan of Attack and relayed via Ara Rubyan’s E Pluribus Unum, shouldn’t reassure anybody:

“I haven’t suffered doubt,” he told Woodward. When the author?quoting Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove?suggested that “all history gets measured by outcomes,” Bush “smiled,” reports Woodward. ” ‘History,’ he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. ‘We won’t know. We’ll all be dead’.”