Call it the Iraq Syndrome. Because the United States and its allies invaded Iraq a decade ago under the erroneous assumption that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, President
The Iraq Syndrome was in evidence Thursday when the British House of Commons debated -- and then decided to oppose -- a punitive military attack on Syria. The vote came despite a report from Britain’s joint intelligence committee concluding that it was “highly likely” that the government of
As Kerry spoke Friday, pointing to evidence that the Syrian government had engaged in chemical warfare, the Twitterverse was filled with references to then-Secretary of State
Yet the differences between Iraq and Syria are as notable as the similarities. In Iraq, the question was whether Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons; in Syria, it seems undeniable that such weapons exist and were used. The question is whether they were deployed by the Assad government, either on orders from the top or as part of a rogue commander's operation.
The evidence offered Friday by the Obama administration strikes me as supporting its "high confidence" that the Syrian government was responsible for a poison gas attack. (Whether that evidence justifies a punitive military attack is another question.) But I know that in saying that, I am inviting objections along the lines of "They said that about Iraq too."
Fighting the last war is an occupational hazard not only for generals and politicians but for their critics.