HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

In an otherwise accurate assessment of the current state of the Iraq War, Andrew Sullivan writes the following:

I originally thought the Iraq invasion was, in fact, a sane if ambitious attempt to grapple with this. Saddam Hussein had to go, he was a monster and a danger, his state was crumbling. Why not intervene, secure the country, impose order and start the long, slow process of democratic nation building? Only a democratic space could begin to offer a more hopeful alternative to the lure of Islamism in a beleaguered Arab world.

His state was crumbling? Really?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't Sullivan among the legions of "wise men" who proclaimed that sanctions weren't working, and that as a result the use of force was our only option? Wasn't he actually making precisely the opposite argument he's making here: that Saddam was so strong he posed a dire and immediate threat to the world?

Furthermore, if Iraq really was "crumbling," and the nation really was ready for "the long, slow process of democratic nation building," what need was there for war? Wouldn't it have made far more sense to simply wait for the collapse and then, if necessary, step in to provide assistance? After all, if the Iraqis could do it on their own, wouldn't that be a far more powerful example to the Arab world than a western-led invasion and intervention? What am I missing here?

I admire Sullivan for his ability to admit to his many mistakes over the past few years, but this is really ridiculous. People shouldn't be allowed to rewrite their own histories like this. Particularly when their history is available as a blog for everyone to read.