RSS Feed MenuThis interview with Guernica magazine also details some of the changes/constants in my thinking since 2001.
Guernica: David, that memo you wrote helped sell a war to the public that has killed more than four thousand American soldiers, maimed tens of thousands of them, and killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of Iraqi civilians. Do you bear any responsibility for those lives destroyed?
David Frum: Only to the extent that I deserve credit for the overthrow of one of America’s most implacable enemies and one of the world’s most vicious and aggressive tyrants. Which is to say—to a very minute degree. I’ve lived in Washington for thirteen years now, but still there remain some limits to my self-importance.
Independent // Mar 24, 2010 at 1:23 pm
DavidF, nice picture to go with the fluff article. The shot projects you as being open, sporty, engaged and youthful in your own way.
I can barely make out the horns –just kidding. Keep working toward redemption as a conservative and former GOPer… it may not be a 12 step process, but it is tough sledding. And it takes work.
James Cody // Mar 24, 2010 at 1:58 pm
What I’d like to know about the changes/constants in your thinking is this. We now know that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq was such a technologically and financially broken state that it was not capable of developing WMDs and most likely could not have acquired WMDs. We also know there were no substantial relations between Iraq and al Qaeda. At the same time, it’s abundantly clear that all those assurances for all those years that Iraq would not detract from Afghanistan and we could fight both wars at once were flat out wrong. It also seems likely that if we didn’t invade Iraq and instead focused on Afghanistan, we very possibly might have gotten bin Laden and destroyed al Qaeda by now. And then there’s all the other issues, e.g., the war has created the largest refugee problem in the world outside of the Palestinians and likely will be a destabilizing force in neighboring countries for decades to come, and it’s arguable that Iraq will end up an ally of Iran. On the flip side, Iraq is now a democracy and has gotten rid of an evil dictator. But in terms of our national security and winning the war on terrorism, it appears clear to me, at least, that the Iraq War was a huge negative with massive negative consequences.
Now, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that based on what we knew in 2003, invading Iraq was the right thing to do. (I very much disagree with that position, and I originally supported the war, but I do think it’s reasonable to hold that view.) But what I want to know is based on what we know now, do you believe that we would have been better off if we never invaded Iraq?
sinz54 // Mar 24, 2010 at 3:10 pm
James Cody: It also seems likely that if we didn’t invade Iraq and instead focused on Afghanistan, we very possibly might have gotten bin Laden and destroyed al Qaeda by now.
No.
Intelligence reports suggest that Osama bin Laden fled into Pakistan shortly after his escape from Tora Bora in November 2001. And we’ve been chasing him around there ever since. We don’t dare put a huge force into Pakistan, so we’re stuck.
The botched assault on Tora Bora in November 2001–relying on (unreliable) Northern Alliance forces rather than U.S. troops–allowed bin Laden to escape.
We have never had as good a shot at him, ever since.
Danny_K // Mar 24, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Talleyrand said about the Bourbon kings, “they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”
Frum and the other ex-Bushies are the Bourbons of modern America.