Implications of admitting Iraq invasion was wrong

[Dinsdale]

I (and at least 1 or 2 other nuts) were never convinced that there was a legitimate justification for our invasion of Iraq. And I sense a similar message from the Obama campaign. I wonder, however, whether a succeeding administration could - or ought to - ever admit such an error/lie on behalf of a prior administration.

What - if any - implications would there be were a president after Bush to acknowledge that invading Iraq was simply an exercise of power? I'm thinking that such a blatant admission would open our country up to criticisms and costs of a magnitude that would likely outweigh any potential benefits to be gained from such an admission.

(Please note - I am not trying to debate whether the invasion was warranted, or whether it was based on falsehoods. Presuming an administration DID act wrongly such as this, do practical considerations preclude a succeeding administration from admitting such international wrongdoing?)

[Der Trihs]

I don't see how it would cost us internationally to admit what everyone outside the country already knows. If you are worried about the international costs of admitting the truth, well, what about the costs of blatantly denying reality ?

Admitting the truth would at least make us look saner.

[Dinsdale]

I don't see how it would cost us internationally to admit what everyone outside the country already knows.

I know we do not submit to the jurisdiction of the World Court and such, but I was mainly wondering whether such an admission might give rise to claims for reparations.

I recall countries apologizing for specific acts/policies - generally at some time in their somewhat remote past. Are there precedents for a country acknowledging more recent wrongdoing? And if so, what were the repercussions?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Governments in general seem very reluctant to admit to errors in their past no matter how egregious. My guess it is more over national pride than anything else and the people under that government do not like to have their leaders make them feel they have to humble themselves before the world.

As such most admissions come long after the initial error so most of those involved are dead and the new generation can say, "Yeah, that was bad but it wasn't us."

You see such admissions on things like our treatment of Japanese-Americans during WWII where they got an apology and $20,000 (to the survivors). Just took about 60 years to happen.

[Bayard]

I know we do not submit to the jurisdiction of the World Court and such, but I was mainly wondering whether such an admission might give rise to claims for reparations.

I don't see us paying post-WWI-style reparations to another state. Who would we pay them to? If we had invaded Saddam's Iraq, took over some territory or caused damage, left his government in power, and then admitted we were wrong, Saddam could potentially have used that admission to pressure us for reparations. But the state that we wronged no longer exists. And, we're already pumping a bunch of money into the new state, so I'm not sure there's a place for old-fashioned reparations.

Compensation to the famiiles of the dead might be another matter. If we admit we were wrong, they might push for compensation from the US, but without the support of the government in Baghdad, they probably wouldn't get very far. On the other hand, maybe a future government in Iraq would use an admission of fault to press for payments of some kind.

[BrainGlutton]

I recall countries apologizing for specific acts/policies - generally at some time in their somewhat remote past. Are there precedents for a country acknowledging more recent wrongdoing? And if so, what were the repercussions?

I believe Germany has admitted wrongdoing in WWII; no repercussions that had not already happened to it. (Japan has not, AFAIK.)

[Whack-a-Mole]

I know we do not submit to the jurisdiction of the World Court and such, but I was mainly wondering whether such an admission might give rise to claims for reparations.


Well, you cannot force a government to pay reparations (short of invading them and taking your reparations). You can ask of course and push for them but it is entirely up to the other player to do it. Further, there are a lot of ways besides outright payments to express wrongdoing.

We have two prime examples on each side of this fence.

On the one side we have Germany post-WWII. They nationally took ownership of their shame and have been paying reparations ever since (to this day even although I think Germany is nearly done with all that now). Further, they forbid holocaust denial and teach their role in WWII in schools largely how it is taught in other Western governments.

On the other side you have Japan which to this day has barely acknowledged their role in WWII and particularly as regards China. I believe they have made some distinctly unremarkable attempts at apology which for China have come nowhere close to a proper admission of guilt. IIRC the Japanese gloss over their atrocities in their schools if they even admit to any of it at all. Reparation-wise I am unsure if they have paid anything but again I believe China feels it is pathetic (if Japan has made some payments which I have a fuzzy recollection they have done some of) in relation to the crimes. To this day this remains a distinct cause for tension between the two countries.

[Burton]

I I'm thinking that such a blatant admission would open our country up to criticisms and costs of a magnitude that would likely outweigh any potential benefits to be gained from such an admission.
[/i]

As if all that hasn't already happened?

[Mr. Moto]

The issue, too, is that to a great degree this current conflict was an extension of hostilities from 1990 onward - and the Hussein regime undoubtedly kicked those off.

[gonzomax]

It might make it hard for Bush ,Rummy and the other perpetrators to travel abroad. They might be subject to local arrest and trials. I have read that Kissinger still has countries he must avoid.

[begbert2]

The issue, too, is that to a great degree this current conflict was an extension of hostilities from 1990 onward - and the Hussein regime undoubtedly kicked those off.Well, that's a justification I hadn't heard before.

[John Mace]

Well, that's a justification I hadn't heard before.

Really? It's in the AUMF:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

[etc...]

[Mr. Moto]

There you go.

[Huerta88]

A very big reason they can't admit that "keeping America safe from terror" was a bogus justification for Iraq is that the same thesis is still officially on the table, certainly for any future Republican President, with the neocons' list of unfinished business.

GWB clearly would bomb or invade Iran if he had the time and political capital to do so. I have little doubt that he would then (again, given time and resources) dutifully go down the PNAC/AEI/neocon wish list and invade or bomb Syria, Lebanon, whoever else.

The neocons haven't gone away, nor has their agenda. Admitting that Iraq was a mistake means admitting that their agenda, or their rationale for the invasion, was, if not mistaken, then at a minimum, not a crucial imperative for American security and sovereignty. They can't give that away because it's their only rationale for why America would want or need to appoint itself Middle East policeman.

This is not a uniquely Republican issue. The neocons and their allied organizations have influence with the Democrats too. Look at Lieberman, for instance. If he had become President, would he have admitted Iraq was wrong? Hell no, he can't get enough of it and is squarely with Bill Kristol on painting Iran as the next worst thing since Hitler.

Finally, admitting it was wrong would risk an inquest into why and how such a bad decision had been made, which would expose the degree of lobbying and opinion molding of various special interest groups, think tanks, etc. There are stupid decisions, and no one likes admitting to stupidity, but it's better than admitting you were complicit in your own deception by someone else.