For the past month, the media has managed to remember the fact
that the Iraq war was bad. Or rather, would-be and official candidates for the
2016 presidency are being asked about their stance on that war, and whether
they would have supported it at the time.
This is both an important question and an exercise in “too little,
too late.” Much like the media failed at the time, then wrote self-flagellating,
self-satisfied articles of regret five to ten years later, politicians today
know the war wasn’t popular enough to support without waffling. So they respond
in kind.
Rick Perry wouldn’t have gone in given the lack of WMDs.
Jeb Bush would have — maybe? Rand Paul wouldn’t have. Marco Rubio has expressed
support for nation-building in the past, but has finally decided that this war was kind of bad.
Scott Walker had the same general answer about the war being mistaken, but that
most leaders would have (and did) support the war given what was known at the
time. In order to prepare for 2016, Hillary Clinton made sure to include a mea
culpa on her “yes” Iraq vote in her memoir. Lindsey Graham. — well, the man
sticks to his principles, even if they are of the most hawkish variety.
Like the tragically tardy popularity of being against
the war on drugs, this attempt at distancing from the Iraq war bodes well. “We”
in the general sense get that that war was a disaster, and that worn out chemical
weapons stocks is not the same thing as Saddam Hussein threatening the world
with WMDs. Or that as bad as Saddam was, invading was worse. Recent polls even
suggest that Americans aren’t scared enough of ISIS to want to send American troops back into the mess we made.