Professor Bainbridge Stirs Up a Blogstorm

He raises hell here!

The flame wars follow! (Hat tip to Southern Appeal)

I like Professor Bainbridge. I've admired his work in the past. I also share his frustrations concerning the Iraq War to a certain extent. However, I think he's made a losing case for these concerns here. This will take some explaining, so bear with me. If I've done it right, by the end of this post I'll have shown where he's gone off the rails and what problems he could have illustrated to better make his case.

As I see it, he vents his frustration over US/Iraq War policy on Conservative principles. Unfortunately, he does so using language that's been employed far too often by the Reasonable pacificist antiwar coalition. His main concerns appear to be:

1. The Iraq war's causus belli was ill conceived.
2. The current strategy of using US troops as "bait" for a "flypaper" trap of jihadists erodes civilian support and proves ineffective.
3. Osama Bin Laden remains on the loose and the failure to capture him has caused the US to loose credibility.
4. The resulting loss of popular support for the war will generate negative
consequences for conservatives in the next election cycles. They could lose all that they have gained.

The Professor opens with his first argument, the inappropriate casi belli:

Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:

"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.

I guess that's all he has left. After all, if Iraq's alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren't we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam's cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren't we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?

The Administration's case for a US invasion of Iraq was a mess from the beginning. Officials from Vice President Cheney to the White House press secretary placed far too much emphasis on Hussein's WMD threat. And far too little on Iraq's centrality as an enabler of Islamist terror. The President's over-reliance on this justification left the US open to charges that our casus belli wasn't just. Weapons inspectors, backed by the threat of certain UN retaliation should Hussein fail to comply, may have been able to make the determination of Iraq's compliance. Or lack thereof. The White House's insistance on Iraq's possible WMDs made objecting to further inspections more difficult, since people of good will could raise the argument I just cited. Had the administration made clear from the beginning the support that Hussein had given Al Queda operations within his own nation, then the government might have gained far more popular support.

Unfortunately, Professor Bainbridge fails to address any of these legitimate questions of the Administration's casus belli. Instead, he produces non-sequitors disguised as questions, asking why the US has failed to consistently apply its justifications to other offenders. He fails to take the Global War on Terror into account as the context for why the President pushed for the invasion. North Korea and other "nasty dictators" have not sheltered, equipped or made themselves in any way available to islamofascists to the extent that action against them is necessary. Pakistan has cooperated with the US so far in the GWOT. Iran certainly represents a potential threat; however, they declared their intention to enrich Uranium after the Iraq war began, if I recall correctly. The Professor's evident refusal to consider the geopolitical relevence of these criminal states to the US GWOT policy objectives hamstrings his argument. Few will take his concerns about US casus belli seriously since he doesn't offer serious objections.

Failing to gain any significant yards with his first pass attempt, our unhappy camper hands off on his second:

The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper.

(snip)

We're not using a fraction of our military potential, and there seems to be no clear viable long-term goal or exit strategy.
-------------------------------------------------
The second problem is that the fly paper strategy seems to be radicalizing our foes even more. For every fly that gets caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up. This should hardly come as a surprise to anybody who has watched Israel pursue military solutions to its terrorist problems, after all. Does anybody really think Israel's military actions have left Hezbollah or Hamas with fewer foot soldiers? To the contrary, the London bombing suggests to me that it is only a matter of time before the jihadists strike in the US again, even though our troops remain hung out as fly paper in the Augean Stables of Iraq. {Update: The news that Scotland Yard foiled a gas attack on the House of Commons, for which the Yard deserves mega-kudos, doesn't change my mind. As the climax of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor suggests (and I still wonder of that inspired 9/11), the terrorists only need to win once. Conversely, the latest news about that rocket attack on a US Navy ship in Jordan seems to confirm my concerns: "The Abdullah Azzam Brigades -- an al-Qaida-linked group that claimed responsibility for the bombings which killed at least 64 people at Sharm el-Sheik in July and 34 people at two other Egyptian resorts last October -- said in an Internet statement that its fighters had fired the Katyushas, bolstering concerns that Islamic extremists had opened a new front in the region." Indeed, the NYT reports that: "The possible involvement of Iraqis and the military-style attack have raised fears that militants linked to Iraq's insurgency may be operating on Jordanian soil."}

Here, the professor gains some ground, though not as much as he might like. The "fly-paper" strategy certainly could alienate the public. Support for the war has dropped, and the mounting casualties have contributed to this. If the strategy of luring terrorists out into the open so the US military can kill them is in play, it's proving costly--perhaps too costly for many Americans. The Professor's on solid ground here.

Too bad he doesn't stay.

Instead, he wanders off into aimless speculation, and away from other considerations that would support his policy objections. It's difficult to "radicalize even more" an enemy that flies jets into towers. As for the numbers, it's clear that the islamists battle the US because they know they must win in Iraq if they are to win their jihad. The Professor doesn't seem to consider what a loss in Iraq means for them. It means that a stable society with some form of representative democracy may take root in Iraq. It means that Arabs living under the thumb of corrupt dictatorships will see their peers prosper in a society that's more free than their own. It means that an Arab nation, which develops a vibrant economy--not impossible considering Iraq's natural resources, offers hope to all Arabs that want to enjoy a better life. It means that the US has truly ended Realpolitik support for tinpot dictators. How will the jihadists hope to sustain their caliphatic dreams if fewer and fewer join their apocalyptic cause? This is why islamo-fascist jihadists storm the fields of Babylon. Their activity in Jordan and London reveal how desperate they are to win in Iraq; they're attempting to subvert US allies in a bid to gain an advantage in Iraq.

If the Professor wants to make a legitimate objection to the American ius en bellum, how about this: border control is atrocious. Jihadists pour in because the military can't defend Iraq's borders. IEDs have injured and killed more servicemen than practically any other method the butchers employ. Why is personnel and vehicle armor so inadequit? Why hasn't intelligence been able to keep up with the technological evolution of the IEDs? Why hasn't the President made the Iranian mullahs an offer they can't refuse? If the Prof really wanted to go for the Administration's throat, he could ask why Paul Bremer authorized the dismissal of the entire Iraqi army. He could ask why the Iraqi Civilian Administration lost Baghdad. He could ask why decisive efforts weren't made on the battlefield because of media concerns. Any of these points would yield more traction with the President's staunchest supporters--at least, the ones that haven't drowned in the Republican kool-aid. Instead, he drifts off into the conspiratorial narratives favored by the Howard Dean extremists.

I'll hand it to the Professor; he's determined to see his case through. Unfortunately, his next play is stuffed at the line of scrimage:

While we remain bogged down in Iraq, of course, Osama bin Laden remains at large somewhere. Multi-tasking is all the rage these days, but whatever happened to finishing a job you started? It strikes me that catching Osama would have done a lot more to discourage the jihadists than anything we've done in Iraq.

He's got to be kidding, right? Unfortunately, he's not. He's confused the movement with the man. What Bin Laden represents is much more of a threat then he ever was. The Islamo-fascism that envisions a world caliphate succeeds him with ease. If the US arrested Bin Laden tomorrow, another would step into his shoes in short order. Sure, there would be a temporary setback to Al Quaeda. But the organization would go on. If it didn't, copy-cats would. Meanwhile, the islamo-fascists would find new targets of opportunity. Yes, the US needs to finish the job in Afghanistan, but the job is helping that nation get on its feet. Meanwhile, the enemy plots and strikes elsewhere. The US would have to fight somewhere else soon enough. The Professor's implication that the US had time to focus on Afghanistan to the near exclusion of any other operation against terrorists is dangerously naive and unconvincing.

He'd could have said that the Administration should have taken NATO up its historic offer. Then there would have been enough troops on the ground to secure Afghanistan. Not to mention ensure that a democratic government could control the country. NATO troops also may have prevented Bin Laden's escape.

It's fourth down. Many players in the Prof's position would punt about now. Not him; he has one hail mary left in him. He lets it sail:

What really annoys me, however, are the domestic implications of all this. The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?

He leads with his exasperation far too much here. He's coughed up conjecture and speculation without a fact or reasonable proposition to back it up.

Certainly the Administration has not made many conservatives happy. The Bush White House and the Republican controlled congress have spent the taxpayer's money as easily as their democratic rivals did before them. When even Sean Hannity chews on the legs of the Republicans over their pork-barrelling, there's a problem! The president has offered no more constructive response to the chaotic southern border than the democrats have, either. Too often, he's phoned in his support for the prolife wing of his party.

However, President Bush has made some important moves. His tax cuts have helped reverse the economy out of its recession. He did sign the partial birth abortion ban into law. He has appointed conservatives to the Federal Court, and Roberts looks like a solid SCOTUS nomination. Most importantly, there hasn't been another islamo-fascist attack on homeland soil since 9/11. (praise be to God!)

The Professor's speculation about soccer moms and Senate amount to little more than chicken-littlism. The Soccer moms supported Bush nearly 2 to 1 in 2004 when the election was a referandum on the war. The Democrats so far have developed no alternative to the president's policies other than no-ism and obstructionism. This will not win them seats in the 2006 or 2008 elections. While Iraq remains an eye-brow raiser for the savy conservatives, it's not the gash on the titanic that Professor Bainbridge sees.

Had the Professor more effectively argued that the Iraq War policy distracted the administration from the domestic agenda, he might have made his case. The president could certainly improve his domestic performance. In particular, the President has not led from the podium. He needs more face time with the nation. He needs to make his case to the country. He's allowed the media to define his presidency for far too long. Additionally, he has a lot of work to do to rebuild conservatives' trust. The next budget had better not pork-barrel its way to new obscene heights. He needs to move judge Roberts' nomination through the Senate before October. Finally, he needs to get out in front on the life issues and make the case for why the nation should protect the unborn from at least partial birth abortion and ESCR, while offering to support the latest breakthroughs in SCR--CREs. All of the president's effort on these issues may have suffered because of the war.

Professor Bainbridge made a valiant effort. He's clearly frustrated over the US' incomprehensible misques in Iraq. He passionately argues against them, and that is his achilles' heal. His passion clouds his judgement. He argues for legitimate concerns using faulty premises expressed in compromised language. The very people from whom he would like a fair hearing won't follow his flawed arguments or suffer his misguided rhetoric. He's actually done a disservice to his legitimate cause of insisting that conservatives call Bush to account on Iraq. I'm afraid that few will take that stand with him. That's unfortunate. The nation would be better served if Fools argued the realities on the ground in Iraq without choking on Kool-aid. For now, however, the nation will have to wait. That argument won't happen soon.