Bereuter's assessment is valuable

 No comments  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

Rep. Doug Bereuter should be commended for sharing his assessment that, in retrospect, it was a mistake for the United States to launch its pre-emptive military attack in Iraq.

A thoughtful, objective, dispassionate voice is a rarity in politics, especially in Washington, D.C. in today's era when politicians rarely dare to stray from dogma for fear their own party colleagues will retaliate.

Bereuter, of course, is leaving those concerns behind, since he's stepping down from congress effective Sept. 1.

Some Nebraskans at this point probably share Bereuter's view that the war in Iraq now looks like a mistake. More probably will come around to that opinion as turmoil and violence in Iraq continues to drag on with no clear end in sight.

As Bereuter said in a four-page letter to constituents published in Wednesday's opinion page, his support for pre-emptive military action was based on the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, that he probably would use them again and that he might share them with terrorists.

Central to Bereuter's judgment that the military action was a mistake is the postwar evidence that points to a "massive intelligence failure by the U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies."

He noted, however, that it was no surprise to him the administration has been unable to clearly establish a link between al-Qaida and Saddam, adding he made much the same point in a floor statement on Oct. 8, 2002.

Just as important as Bereuter's verdict on intelligence failures is his appraisal of the administration's handling of postwar Iraq.

Methodically, Bereuter ticked off mistake after mistake. The invading force was inadequate to maintain postwar security. Disbanding the Iraqi army rather than reconstituting it meant thousands of Iraqi men became insurgents or at the least, disenchanted. The Department of State rather than the Department of Defense should have been placed in charge of reconstruction and interim governance, since the state department had more experience in important areas.

As lengthy as Bereuter's list was, it did not even touch on other errors in postwar Iraq, such as the lack of discipline and ambiguous leadership that resulted in mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, including sexual degradation that inflamed Muslims all across the Arab world.

Unlike some war critics, Bereuter does see some benefit from the war in Iraq. "The Middle East neighborhood and the rest of the world no doubt is safer from attack and subversion now that Saddam has been removed from power," Bereuter wrote.

In making his "assessment and accounting", Bereuter is engaging in the important process of self-criticism.

That's essential if the United States is to learn from its mistakes. Because as Bereuter also noted "there is no quick and easy way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

No doubt it would have been easier for Bereuter to step down without one last look in the mirror. By delivering his honest and unflinching assessment he performed a valuable service that should and will be appreciated by his constituents and other Americans.