This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

I’ve written about this before – hindsight vs. foresight regarding the U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq.

That conundrum applies to many other decisions in government.  What makes sense at the time often looks strange or bad years later.  It’s part of the reality of government leadership.

That go-to-war decision on Iraq is now 20 years old, so it is time for more news commentary on the issue. 

Before citing two examples of commentary, here is my bottom-line view, supported only by perception, not by independently acquired facts:  At the time 20 years ago, in the Administration of President George W. Bush, it made sense to rely on foresight.  The best intelligence at the time showed Iraq had access to weapons of mass destruction, so removing Saddam Hussein’s ability to use them against the U.S. made eminent sense. 

Retired Wall Street Journal editor Gerard Baker disagrees.  Here is what he wrote in the Journal under this headline and subhead:  Two Decades Later, the Iraq War Is Hard to Defend; Baghdad is no longer a threat, but it’s fallacious to claim invasion was the only means to that end.

“Some of those who supported the invasion of Iraq 20 years ago this week are making the best defense they can of what the rest of us long ago concluded was probably the most flawed decision in American foreign policy since the founding of the republic.

“The case for the war two decades in the rearview mirror goes something like this:   It was messy and poorly executed, true, but Iraq is better off now than it was then, and more important, it no longer poses a threat to the U.S., its allies and its interests.  

“Tragic as American and allied military deaths and injuries are, this was achieved with the loss of a fraction of the casualties in Korea or Vietnam, let alone the world wars.  The fiscal cost was relatively small too, perhaps $100 billion a year for eight years, well below 1 per cent of U.S. gross domestic product.

“What’s more, the defenders say, we tend to see events like these through a static rather than a dynamic view of history.  Even if the U.S. hadn’t invaded Iraq in 2003, it’s likely that over the next 10 years terrible violence would have unfolded there.  Sooner or later the suppression of the Shiite two-thirds of the population by the Sunni Arab quarter would have ended in mass bloodshed.”

Baker makes his claims with the benefit of hindsight, which, definition, gives him information he would not have had 20 years ago when, if he had been president, would have forced a decision.

Atlantic Magazine writer Tom Nichols makes a different case.

“Twenty years after the United States led a coalition to overthrow Saddam Hussein, the conventional wisdom is now that the postwar fiasco proved that the war was a mistake from its inception.  The war, as it was executed, was indeed a disaster, but there was ample cause for launching it.”

Guess who wants no part of this debate?

George W. Bush.

Here is how writer Peter Baker put in the New York Times:

“Twenty years later, veterans are reflecting on their service and remembering fallen comrades.  Iraqis are talking about how their country has changed and how it has not.  American lawmakers are debating whether to finally repeal the legislation authorizing the invasion.

“One person not heard from in recent days:  Former President George W. Bush.

“That is how he wants it.  He has no interest in being part of the debate anymore.  He did what he did and does not engage in second-guessing, at least not out loud.  He knows the questions he would be asked if he spoke out now:  Was it worth it?  Does he regret it?  What would he have done differently?  How will history remember it?  

“As far as he is concerned, the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, and he has told advisers he has not changed his mind about that.”

I don’t have enough information to render a final judgment.  All I will say is that George W. Bush made a decision as president based on his judgment of the best intelligence information he had at the time – not what analysts contend now — and that’s good enough for me.