RSS Feed MenuThe last U.S. combat forces exit Iraq this week. The argument over Iraq is still nowhere near finished.
The costs of the Iraq war are evident to all. Now consider an alternative universe, with different choices –and weigh those costs.
As president, George Bush assessed his options in 2002, oil prices averaged less than $23 a barrel. These low prices had squeezed Iraq’s income and therefore Saddam Hussein’s power.
But war or no war, the price of oil would zoom upward in the 2000s. China had more than 90 times as many cars on the road in 2010 as in 1990. Chinese oil imports grew 7.5% a year, Indian oil imports only slightly less fast. Soaring oil demand from China and India pushed prices higher and higher: averaging $28 a barrel in 2003, $38 in 2004, $50 in 2005, $64 in 2007 and $91 in 2008. A surviving Saddam would have been a wealthy Saddam.
Not only wealthy, but empowered. The international sanctions regime had collapsed in the late 1990s, freeing Saddam to import more or less what he wished, potentially including the instrumentalities of war.
As we now know, Saddam Hussein had not in fact succeeded in reconstituting his nuclear program as of 2003. But Saddam did try twice before to gain a nuclear weapon: He had a program in the 1970s that was wrecked by Israeli airstrike in 1981, and then a second program in the 1980s that was discovered by UN arms inspectors after the First Gulf War.
It seems incredible that a Saddam still in power in the 2000s, unconstrained by sanctions and enriched by Chinese and Indian oil money, would not have tried a third time. Even if Saddam had not sought to build a nuclear bomb, an additional $100 billion or so in annual oil revenues would still have paid for a lot of mischief in the Middle East.
Would Saddam have competed with Iran to fund Hamas? Would he have made common cause with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to support anti-government insurgents in Colombia? Would Iraq have offered haven to al-Qaeda terrorists escaping Afghanistan?
A Saddam-ruled Iraq would not have been a quiet or comfortable place. And when the regime finally did end, it would have ended violently. When the U.S.-led coalition overthrew Saddam, violence erupted between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis, leading to an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths. Does anybody imagine that things would have gone better if the regime had ended instead with a Saddam assassination or heart attack?
Blame the Americans, if you like, for not having a better plan ready to contain the violence. But it was not the United States that caused the violence, much less the United States that committed the violence.
Now Iraq is finding its way to stability. For all the country’s many problems, it has an elected government and an effective post-Saddam security force. Would this have happened in the absence of international forces? Or would Iraq have looked like Lebanon between 1975 and 1991, a cauldron of sectarian violence for a generation, with casualties of many multiples of 100,000? Again: We cannot know, but the ugly scenarios are the most plausible.
With hindsight, everybody would fight the Iraq war differently. That is always true for any war. But it should also be true that with hindsight, some war critics should rethink their criticism. The outcome the critics wanted — a long-term stable future for Iraq without the cost and trauma of international intervention — was as much a fantasy as hopes for a swift and easy transition to democracy.
Iraq was on its way to an explosion in 2002. The U.S.-led intervention brought that explosion forward in time, and exposed Americans and allies to the shrapnel wounds. But the intervention may also have accelerated Iraq’s post-Saddam stabilization — opening the way to internal reconciliation and Iraq’s return to the community of nations.
Critics of the Iraq war often compare it to Vietnam. I wonder if the better comparison is not Korea: a war that once looked like a pointless stalemate, but that gained a strategic rationale as South Korea grew into a wealthy democracy. I remember a conversation I had with an American officer when I visited Iraq in 2005.
“What do you hope to achieve here?” I asked. “I mean, you personally?”
He answered: “Someday I’d like to bring my kids to visit a successful Iraq and tell them, ‘I made this possible.’” It’s early yet for this officer to begin planning his return trip. But comparing Iraq today to Iraq then — that trip has come a lot closer.
Originally published in the National Post.
easton // Aug 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Saddam Hussein was a cancer on the Middle East, and a man who practiced genocide against the Kurds and the southern Shia along the marshland. He would likely have turned over his genocidal regime to one of his sons (one who was even worse than he). Saddam also had a zero learning curve and would have done anything. He did attempt to have GWHB killed, which is causus belli enough for me.
From a purely humanitarian standpoint his being exterminated was a net good. Of course I understand those that say we can’t kill every bad leader in the world, but this guy did start 3 wars and was an avowed enemy of the US.
This said, while it certainly is true that his death benefited Iraq, it certainly did not benefit the US.
I contend it could have.
Fundamentally Bush did a horrendous job. Rumsfeld deserves a place in infamy for his negligence. I disagree with a few posters though, like abj: You don’t go into countries, decapitate the govt, allow for the (inevitable) destruction of the govt structure and infrastructure and then just leave.
The destruction of the gov’t structure was not inevitable. We chose to decommission the army. We could have simply appointed a high ranking General as temporary leader, continued to pay the Iraqi army to secure the peace, and then began to withdraw after we killed Saddam, leaving a clear message to the new military junta. You can have this country, just don’t screw with us.
If the country then descended into Civil War, so be it. They would have bled themselves dry eventually. But we have no way of knowing that would have happened either.
This was one option, the second was the Shinseki approach. Neither was done. Bush hoped for the best and planned for the best. However, if we had good leadership, it could have been a great success.
PracticalGirl // Aug 28, 2010 at 5:42 pm
DSP:
Welcome to Earth
Watusie brings up perhaps the most direct contrast to Frum’s hypothetical. If it is true that the underlying wisdom for attacking Iraq was to insure that Saddam never got financially powerful, did we not greatly diminish our own power in pusuing this goal? I still say that, perhaps not at the forefront, but in the back of bin Laden’s mind was the very real possibility of how the Bush administration would react and overreact to 9-11, and the possible financial aftermath for the US.
The question I really have, asked in present tense but with full retrospection, is: Who broke whom?
easton // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:00 pm
“If it is true that the underlying wisdom for attacking Iraq was to insure that Saddam never got financially powerful, did we not greatly diminish our own power in pusuing this goal?”
I think this is faulty, we could have gone in, removed Saddam, left other leaders in place under a military dictatorship, and left, it would have cost us practically nothing. That has been done countless times in History.
Lets not forget, invading countries and winning easily have generally been a benefit to the invader. Britain built a huge empire doing so. Same with Spain.
armstp // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:35 pm
David,
A very amateur piece. You obviously do not have much deep knowledge of Iraq and the outcome.
You are largely just regurgitating your old Axis of Evil…. be afraid, be very afraid stuff… this is getting old.
Who cares if Saddam would have been a wealthier man? All the other Arab dictators who were and are no better or worse than Saddam Hussien are also wealthier.
Saddam has never been a threat to the U.S. and in fact was more of a friend to the U.S.
I am not sure sanctions collapsed in the 1990s. They continued to have a devasting impact on the Iraqi economy.
There is no evidence that Saddam would have reconstituted his nuclear program. Far from it. In fact, all that the Iraq war did was was push Iran into more quickly developing their own nuclear program. And even if Saddam was to gain nuclear weapons, so what?
The damage the Iraq war has done to our military and military readiness and in taking the eye off the ball on Al Qaeda was enormous and makes the Iraq War the single biggest foreign blunder in U.S. history. We gained absolutely nothing positive out of it.
There was no evidence that Saddam was undertaking any mischief, as you say, in the gulf. In fact, he was rather well contained.
A lot of “what ifs” in there??? The tooth fairly could give me a million bucks tonight as well.
The best and most well know survey of Iraqis deaths related to the U.S. invasion is closer to 1 million Iraqis and another 4 million displaced and millions living in much more poverty. That is frankly criminal.
David Frum, you completely miss the huge elephant in the room. The single biggest outcome of the Iraq war is the rise in power and influence of Iran. At minimum Iraq no longer provides the counter balance to Iran and at worse Iran now has significant control of Iraq.
How can you write a piece call “Iraq in Hindsight” and never once mention Iran???? This alone discredits your amateurish piece.
I won’t even bother commenting on Iraq’s elected government. We are just one coup away from being exactly back to where we were.
Just last week:
“On Wednesday, the Sunni Arab guerrilla insurgency of Iraq demonstrated it is alive and able to plan and carry out a nation-wide set of terrorist operations. The covert organization set off bombs in 13 cities, killing some 64 and wounding an estimated 274, and targeting mainly police stations and checkpoints. Indeed, the bloody events could be termed a one-day war on the Iraqi police. ”
For a real pro on Iraq and the Arab world I suggest you read Juan Cole’s recent comments on Iraq.
“US Military Mission in Iraq ends not with a Bang but a Whimper”
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/us-military-mission-in-iraq-ends-not-with-a-bang-but-a-whimper.html
or read this:
“Last US Combat Units withdraw from Iraq”
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/last-us-combat-units-withdraw-from-iraq.html
armstp // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:42 pm
sinz54,
You are very nieve. I suggest you read more about the run-up to war.
The only problem was that there was plenty of evidence that Saddam did not have WMD. The U.N. inspections were telling us that. In fact, there was a real lack of evidence that Saddam did have any WMD. We now know that the Bush adminstration just made it up to justify the war. WMD was how they sold the war to the U.S people. WMD was just the fake excuse to invade an Arab country. To exact revenge for 9-11.
There was no “slam dunk”. Far from it. Just a bunch of lies by the Bush adminstration. They could not prove a connection to 9-11 so they faked the WMD. Again very criminal. And Daivd Frum you directly bare some of the responsiblity for this. You helped stir the fear as a speech writer. David you also have blood on your hands. Don’t you forget that.
And also you are implying that it is okay for the U.S. to pre-emptively invade another country because they may one day be a threat to the U.S. No Iraqi terrorist has ever attacked the U.S. And there is no proof that Saddam has given any help in any form to any other terrorist who has attacked the U.S. However, there were plenty of Saudis who attacked the U.S. on 9-11. Why did we not invade Saudi Arabia?
DeepSouthPopulist // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:50 pm
OT:
@spartacus
RE: Pearl Harbor and FDR. I recommend starting here if you care to look into the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1283035250&sr=8-1-fkmr0
SpartacusIsNotDead // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:52 pm
PracticalGirl wrote: “[P]erhaps not at the forefront, but in the back of bin Laden’s mind was the very real possibility of how the Bush administration would react and overreact to 9-11, and the possible financial aftermath for the US.”
The following is a portion of an email from Osama Bin Laden to Mullah Omar sent on October 3, 2001:
“3- Keep in mind that America is currently facing two contradictory problems:
a) If it refrains from responding to jihad operations, its prestige will collapse, thus forcing it to withdraw its troops abroad and restrict itself to U.S. internal affairs. This will transform it from a major power to a third-rate power, similar to Russia.
b) On the other hand, a campaign against Afghanistan will impose great long-term economic burdens, leading to further economic collapse, which will force America, God willing, to resort to the former Soviet Union’s only option: withdrawal from Afghanistan, disintegration, and contraction.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/09/inside-al-qaeda-rsquo-s-hard-drive/3428/
SpartacusIsNotDead // Aug 28, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Easton wrote: “Lets not forget, invading countries and winning easily have generally been a benefit to the invader. Britain built a huge empire doing so. Same with Spain.”
This is true only if the invaders remain occupiers and exploit the resources of the invaded country. To its credit, the U.S. has not followed this practice.
armstp // Aug 28, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Easton,
The U.S. was responsible for directly or indirectly more Iraqi deaths than Saddam ever was and likely would have been. By your logic we should be in Zimbabwe right now!
easton // Aug 28, 2010 at 8:25 pm
armstp, I would not be averse to dropping a laser guided missile on Mugabes palace.
I can understand saying not get involved in the rights of other countries to commit torture and genocide on their own people, just don’t get moralistic about it.
And the US was not more responsible than Saddam ever was. Good lord, there was that whole 8 year war with Iran for one in which both sides chewed up their populace as cannon fodder. And to state we were “responsible” for Iraqi deaths when we drove them out of Kuwait is ridiculous. Are you going to argue we were more responsible for Japanese deaths than the Emperor of Japan was during WW2? Responsible means culpable, and up to the second gulf war, we were not culpable for any. We (by which I mean Bush) were during the war by not remotely preparing for it but that is another argument.
Spartacus, yes, but my point was that you can win wars easily and not have any blowback. We took out Noreiga in a, what, 2 day operation? That worked out well for everyone. (except, of course, Noreiga)
armstp // Aug 28, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Easton,
I think it is completely warranted to put aside the Iraq/Iran war when considering the amount of Iraqi dead that Saddam was directly responsible for . It was a war between two countries, like all wars. It is hard to blame that war entirely on Saddam. Although it is true that Iraq invaded Iran first, there were many skirmishes between the two countries once Khomeini came to power, who was stirring up internal conflict within Iraq’s shite population. So hard to put the entire blame of the Iran/Iraq war on Saddam Hussein. Khomeini and Iran also bare a lot of the responsiblity for that war. At the very least it is debateable that Saddam was entirely to blame for the deaths that occured during the Iran/Iraq war. And I would not be surprised if the U.S. was encouraging Iraq to invade Iran at the time. The U.S. certainly armed Saddam during this period and had a motive to encourage the war against Iran, given the hostage crisis and the kicking out of the U.S. backed Shah.
In terms of Iraqi death not related the the Iran-Iraq war there are estimates as high as 800,000 Iraqi deaths that Saddam was responsible for. Although this is likely a little exaggerated, given the source.
http://www.indict.org.uk/newsarticles.php?article=news180603
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq
Even if you say the number is 800,000 dead Iraqis, excluding the Iraq/Iran war, that Saddam was responsible for, this may still be much less than the deaths of Iraqis related to the U.S. invasion.
The most detailed analysis, know as The Lancet study done by John Hopkins put the number of deaths directly related to the U.S. invasion at 655,000 back in 2006, but, many think the number is over 1.0 million Iraqis deaths that would not have happened if the U.S. did not invade Iraq.
“”The Johns Hopkins study estimated that, as of July 2006, 655,000 Iraqis had been killed, about 600,000 of them violently and at least 30 percent directly by coalition forces. It updated an earlier study (Lancet, 10/29/04) that estimated that 100,000 Iraqis had died during the first year of the war. An extrapolation of the Johns Hopkins estimate of violent deaths done by Just Foreign Policy (9/18/07) currently stands at over 1.1 million.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3321
So it could very well be that the U.S. was responsible either directly or indirectly for the deaths of 1.1 milliion Iraqis and Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for up to 800,000 deaths during his time. So yes you can make the statement that the U.S. may have been responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam Hussein ever was. It is possible.
And you could go even further if you include the U.S. lead embargo on Iraq and the possibility of Iraqis that died because of that embargo over the years. Although I will not go there as that is much more debatable.
exguru // Aug 29, 2010 at 12:35 am
Look.
When he insisted on the Surge, against the majority of Congress, half the pentagon, half the Republicans, 80% of the media, and 99% of the academy, George W. Bush was George Washington at the Battle of Monmouth. (You will recall it was at Monmouth that Washington personally took command from Gen. Lee and turned defeat into victory).
When it comes out well, and it now looks like it will, everyone in the world will owe the result not to Albert Gore, Jr., not to John F. Kerry, not to Tony Blair, not to Reid and Pelosi, not to Generals Abizaid, Sanchez, Casey, Garner, Myers, Shinsiki, and others, not to Kofi Annan and his pack of thieves, but to George W. Bush, who had the good sense and fortitude to jump David Petraeus above the others in rank, and adopt his plan. Without Bush’s courage in insisting on the Surge, we would have paid roughly the same price for defeat that we have spent for victory, except that the consequences of defeat would have been far, far more costly over many years to come.
We lost 4,600 honored volunteers, who deserve every possible respect.
No sound of joy or sorrow
Was heard from either bank,
But friends and foes in dumb surprise,
With parted lips and straining eyes,
Stood gazing where he sank;
And when above the surges
They saw his crest appear,
All Rome sent forth a rapturous cry,
And even the ranks of Tuscany
Could scarce forbear to cheer. – T. B. Macaulay
abk1985 // Aug 29, 2010 at 1:10 am
The Surge Failed.
There has been no agreement among the Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds about oil revenue, there has been no agreement about devoluted or shared power, and there are still suicide bombings almost every day. The whole purpose of the surge was to contain the violence to achieve these, and other, strategic aims. None of these aims were achieved. The US still has forces in Iraq, and has a large number of contractor mercenaries doing security work at US taxpayer expense.
Implementing a surge for tactical aims, after mismanaging and dithering about war aims for FIVE YEARS, is no credit to Bush II, and is frankly a waste of resources, just as the Iraq war was a waste of American blood and treasure. In a tactical sense, all the surge has done was postpone the inevitable, an American retreat in a failed war, and the only victor has been Iran.
The Surge Failed.
armstp // Aug 29, 2010 at 11:11 am
exguru,
It is debatable whether the surge worked or how much it worked. The primary strategy of the surge was to focus on Baghdad and put more boots on the ground in Baghdad to stop the violence. By the time the U.S. was able to surge all of its troops into Baghdad, which took several months, the civil war between the Sunni and the Shite was over. Baghdad had been ethnically cleansed of the Sunnis and the violence went down. It is not clear at all whether a few tens of thousands more U.S. soliders had any real impact on squashing the violence in Baghdad, a city of millions. The U.S. military really had no control of the violence in Baghdad, as U.S. soliders were more focused on not being a target of IEDs. In fact, the argument has been made that to a certain extent the violence was higher and the civilian casualties higher because U.S. soliders were attracting IEDs.
sinz54 // Aug 29, 2010 at 4:28 pm
easton: The destruction of the gov’t structure was not inevitable. We chose to decommission the army.
The Iraq government structure fell apart, about 10 minutes after Saddam’s statue was pulled down.
Looters ravaged through government buildings, carrying off whatever they could and burning the rest. There was no one to stop them, because there was no longer any law enforcement, because there were no longer any laws.
Third world despotisms are personality cults. Take the personality of the despot away, and nothiing remains. You can’t expect to decapitate a regime like Saddam’s and expect the local civil service to continue on as if nothing much had happened.
The way a conquering army usually handles this problem, is to set up Military Government of Occupation, with its own Military Police (MPs) to maintain order among the conquered peoples. But the Bush Administration wanted to maintain the fiction that we were “liberating” Iraqis from Saddam rather than conquering the country. So Bush shied away from setting up a Military Government of Occupation.
And the rest is history.
sinz54 // Aug 29, 2010 at 4:33 pm
abk1985: The whole purpose of the surge was to contain the violence to achieve these, and other, strategic aims.
And in that, it succeeded.
The violence has been dampened by something like 95% from 2006 levels.
The other things you speak of, like agreements on oil sharing and the like, are up to the Iraqi people. And given how little experience they have with representative government, we shouldn’t be surprised that it’s going to take them a while to achieve these. After all, they’re used to settling disputes with AK-47s, not with democratic debates. They have a lot of catching up to do.
Recall that while the American revolutionaries defeated the Brits in 1781, it wasn’t till 1789 that the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified. That doesn’t mean the American Revolution was a failure.
Things would have gone a lot faster for the Iraqis, if the U.S. hadn’t listened to Rumsfeld, and instead had locked up the Iraqi country tight as a drum after the Saddam regime fell. Our troops should have been given the order to shoot looters on the spot.
rbottoms // Aug 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Maybe in hindsight deposing Saddam wasn’t worth 5,000 lives, 50,000 service members maimed, 100,000 or more Iraqis dead, and $1,000,000,000,000 US Tax dollars wasted.
On that basis alone it is an utter failure, even now the clown car government of Iraq can’t agree on anything and they will likely be at each others throats in short order.
It’s the fault of your dimwit former boss and his pathological need to show his father the size of his cajones. Maybe GW should have just started drinking again, it would have cost us less.
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Looking Back at Iraq // Aug 30, 2010 at 12:11 pm
[...] assesses the costs of the war to America, which she argues are underappreciated, while David Frum contemplates what the cost of not overthrowing Saddam Hussein might have been. I'd recommend reading both pieces [...]
William Boulet // Aug 30, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Dear Mr Frum,
There are at least two problems with your column: First of all, no one knows what the future would have been had the Americans not invaded Iraq in 2003. Conjecture is as futile as predictions about September the 11th handed down the day before. Scenarios are always based on what the authors can imagine. But, on 9/11, the unimaginable happened, and no one now can claim to know what the tomorrow will look like or would have looked like. The most plausible scenarios for September 11, 2001 would seem painfully embarrassing today.
Secondly, your argument is the same as every other right-wing argument – including that of George W. Bush – I’ve read on this issue: it’s the old either/or argument which goes like this: Had the Americans not invaded Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein would have continued to butcher his people and wreak havoc in the Middle East.
But it was never an either/or situation. That false dilemma was created by the Bush administration. Colin Powell wanted to go into Iraq in January 2005. Imagine what a difference 20 months of preparation time would have made. Imagine if we had let the inspectors do their job. Imagine if the Americans had been able to make their case to the international community. Imagine if other possibilities – short of invasion – had been explored. It was never “go off half cocked in March 2003 and make a balls up of it or let Saddam Hussein slaughter his people for the next twenty years. That argument has always been based on a dishonest premise.
The article I would like to see you write would look like this: let us measure the cost of the war in terms of lives lost, families disrupted, personal, collective and national opportunities missed, children who will never grow up to be productive human beings, treasure expended, the wounded who will suffer and be a burden on others for the rest of their lives, the current state of the US and Iraqi economies and the US deficit, in terms also of a more powerful Iran, increasing anti-Semitism in the world, a generation of Muslims determined to take revenge, and then let us measure that against what was achieved, everything that has been achieved in Iraq and as a result of the war, and then we shall see whether it was all worth it. Perhaps it was, but if the discourse is dishonest, we shall never really know.
William Boulet
Dunrea, Manitoba, Canada
S.L. Toddard // Sep 1, 2010 at 9:06 am
But it should also be true that with hindsight, some war critics should rethink their criticism.
Canadian David Frum is one of the most discredited voices in American politics, surpassed only perhaps by the Kristol and Podhoretz. This is why.
Iraq in the Long Run - NYTimes.com // Sep 1, 2010 at 3:56 pm
[...] and that it may be remembered as the right invasion at the right time — I strongly recommend this piece by David Frum, which argues that it’s almost impossible to imagine “a long-term stable future for [...]
Zombie Contentions - The Iraq Syndrome // Sep 1, 2010 at 4:23 pm
[...] that going to war was the right decision, that its positive effects are under-appreciated, and that the unknowable alternative history would likely have been at least as violent, and further beyond our ability to influence it in our [...]
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Just War and Preventive War // Sep 2, 2010 at 4:02 pm
[...] David Frum's recent defense of the Iraq war in hindsight. Nearly every argument he makes for it is speculative. While some of [...]
The Shaky Logic of Iraq Revisionism « LobeLog.com // Sep 2, 2010 at 6:50 pm
[...] surge that steer clear of the unpopular claim that the war itself was worth it, in recent days both David Frum and Daniel Henninger have relied on counterfactuals to argue that the consequences of not removing [...]
S.L. Toddard // Sep 3, 2010 at 10:10 am
“One thing we can be fairly sure about is that thousands of Americans who are now dead would still be alive and tens of thousands of Americans who are now wounded, some of them catastrophically, would not have been. We also know that America would not be perceived throughout the region and the world as lawless aggressor, our relations with any number of important allies, including Turkey, would not have been badly damaged, and jihadists would not have been given an open killing field on which they were largely free to murder people by the thousands, nor would jihadists have been given such a powerful boost to their propaganda and recruiting. We know that American attention and resources would not have been distracted for years from the war in Afghanistan, which might have otherwise been brought to a close by now, and the American military would not be so badly strained and overstretched. If the U.S. had not invaded, Iranian influence in the region would not have grown as much as it has, a refugee crisis in which millions have been displaced and Iraq’s professional classes have been decimated would not have occurred, and the complete dismantling of the Iraqi state and military apparatus would not have happened.”
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/09/01/the-long-run-authorizes-every-king-of-humbug/