Prompted by my previous post on (not) talking to Al Qaida, a reader comments:

[T]ell me again why you thought invading Iraq was such a great idea?

Fair enough.

My very basic view on Iraq is to be found in the Blogoir FAQs.

More generally, what constitutes a Great Idea in this context?

Which of these policy decisions would now qualify as a Great Idea? Thus:

  • The Russian Revolution
  • Stalin agreeing with Hitler the Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact
  • UK/French Suez intervention
  • Resisting communist aggression in the Korean War
  • Resisting communist aggression in the Vietnam War
  • Not intervening by force to resolve the Cyprus partition
  • (Not) boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics
  • (Not) boycotting the 1884 Los Angeles Olympics
  • (Not) boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics
  • Welcoming Mugabe’s rise to power in Zimbabwe
  • French sabotage attack on Rainbow Warrior
  • Reagan/Thatcher standing firm against Soviet protests about ‘neutron bomb’ deployments in the 1980s
  • President Clinton’s 1998 bombing of targets in Sudan/Afghanistan
  • Blocking Alaskan oil exploration
  • Not intervening by force earlier in the Bosnia conflict
  • Not intervening by force earlier in the Rwanda conflict
  • Kosovo intervention
  • 9/11 attack by Al Qaida
  • Iraq intervention

As time passes these episodes start to look and feel … different. Aspects of their value (or harm) which were not apparent or not seen as significant at the time become clearer, or at least assume greater prominence in history’s eye.

Sometimes the long-term implications are very long-term. The Russian Revolution and WW2 as started by Stalin’s deal with Hitler transformed Russia, but have scary demographic legacies now.

Mugabe began well. Then went Very Bad.

Olympic boycotts capture a moment. But have no lasting impact.

Episodes which look especially fatuous in hindsight are those which may have had some sort of policy justification (at least as seen by those driving them), but were Just Done Badly. Suez, Rainbow Warrior.

And policies howlingly condemned at the time (Reagan/Thatcher v the Soviets) now look like exemplary statesmanship.

Some policies done for sound reasons in one policy area may turn out to create other vulnerabilities (Alaskan oil)

Some policies abruptly shift the course of events into a different track, for better or worse: Kosovo.

Sometimes it is said to be a Great Idea to do nothing. But our doing nothing allows others to do something. This leads sometimes to painful/expensive stalemates (Cyprus, Nagorno Karabakh), sometimes to disaster (Srebrenica, Rwanda, Burma).

It is easy (and correct) enough to attack the Iraq intervention on many counts. There have been positive aspects too. And timescale needs to be borne in mind.

One of the worst leaders of our times was toppled and executed.

Iraq alone in the region has a chance to evolve in a pluralistic direction.

The Islamic world is having to look hard at modernising its attitudes.

And thousands of terrorists have been killed, even if they in turn have killed many more thousands of Iraqis.

So, a mixed picture. As usual.

Or not.

When the remaining Al Qaida leadership peep out of their remote squalid caves in darkest night and wonder if a Killer Drone has spotted them from a control centre thousands of miles away, do they say "Yup, 9/11 sure was a great idea"?