Harry Reid has been going through an “evolvement” on Iraq. Although I disagree with Sen. Reid’s position on Iraq, I think this article best explains where he stands on this issue.
Apparently, evolvement really is a word, even though most spell checkers I know about don’t recognize it.
Go Get’em Harry! He’s been pretty masterful at how he’s turned the tables on Republicans and Bush. Slowly but surely, Republicans will pay a very steep price for their failures and corruption over these past six years.
Geoff, why is this posted here at Millennial Star? The only tangential connection the Politico article has to do with religion or the Church is that Senator Reid is a member. That’s it. I really do not want to see every single political move by Senator Reid or Governor Romney or whoever else posted and analyzed here or other LDS blog sites. There are plenty of non church-related sites that do that 24/7.
If Senator Reid writes again about why he’s glad he believed (https://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2007/03/16/why_harry_reid_is_glad_he_believed), go for it. But please keep plain and simple politics out of Millennial Star.
Yeechang, thanks for visiting here. I actually will be posting the occasional political piece on Romney, Harry Reid and even non-LDS people. My advice would be not to read them if they bother you. But thank you for your input.
In honor VP Cheney’s talk at BYU, I’m going to link his eloquent remarks on Harry Reid’s latest position on Iraq:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZkOTAwYmJhZDFhZWNlNjVhM2RjZTM5OTlkYzU2MmM=
Eloquent?
Maybe in Bizarro World…
How about the reaction by Reid?:
‘Reid shrugged off Cheney’s remarks but with his own dig at the vice president.
“I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration’s chief attack dog,” he said.’
I’m thinking that perhaps this isn’t the best example of not getting into a name-calling match.
Geoff:
In my humble opinion:
1. There is nothing at all honorable about Dick Cheney visiting BYU as its commencement speaker;
2. Harry Reid’s position on Iraq is much more in tune with the Prince of Peace and His gospel, than is Dick Cheney’s position on Iraq.
There is no shame in changing one’s mind if one moves from error into truth.
Sticking with error for the sheer sake of consistency, however, is no virtue.
Harry Reid understands the former. Sadly, Vice President Cheney seem committed to the latter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/06/BL2007040601116.html
If you all believe in multiple mortal probations, there is a serious possibility that Cheney was Gadianton in a former life.
Guy,
“2. Harry Reid’s position on Iraq is much more in tune with the Prince of Peace and His gospel, than is Dick Cheney’s position on Iraq.”
I honestly don’t get this point of view. I could see the argument if this was the beginning of the war and Senator Reid was arguing against it and Cheney was arguing for it. But at this point we’ve already defeated the enemy and helped to install a democratic government. Our troops are already there, and we’re fighting to preserve that new government against enemies that have no regard for the sanctity of human life. The Americans are the ones that are building schools, building bridges, guarding civilians, etc. It’s our enemies that are blowing up children and other civilians and purposely destroying the infrastructure. We want peace in Iraq, they want death and power.
If Cheney had his fondest wish then the insurgents would drop their weapons of war today and Iraq would become a peaceful nation. In other words, he is working towards solidifying a peaceful free country in the middle of the Middle East. That is what he wants, how is that a bad thing? Whereas Senator Reid is working towards our disinvolvement in such a mission. Reid has put himself in a position where it is in his best interest for violence and chaos to continue in Iraq. If things improve he takes a political hit given the positions he has chosen to take. I don’t see anything virtuous in that at all.
“We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,” said Mr. Reid.
Dan, #1, it is fascinating to note that your first response is a purely political one, implying that Reid has been “masterful” in his political maneuvering. For me, this pretty much sums up the Democratic response, which is politics first, doing what is right for national security and the Iraqi people, way down the list.
This is why Guy’s comment #7 is ultimately not convincing to me. Sometimes as a nation you have to fight. It is more honorable, imho, to support your country’s effort than cynically try to make political points.
But before sending me nasty-grams, Dan and Guy and Curtis, you can take heart with the likely result that a Democrat presidential candidate will probably win in 2008. If you look at the electoral college map at this point, it looks very, very grim for the Republicans. Reid’s political calculations are likely to bear fruit, despite their cynical nature.
So, Bush’s vetoes will keep the U.S. in Iraq through January 2009. Hillary or Obama will then have to follow through on their campaign promises. We will see what happens, but history indicates it will not be a pretty sight for the Iraqi people or for U.S. citizens as they prepare for the next al Qaeda attack on our soil (where we have not had a major attack since 9/11).
I predict that because of Democratic dithering and appeasement, we will need to launch an even bigger self-defensive effort in, say, 2010 or 2011. Hillary or Obama cannot afford to look weak. How many hundreds of thousands — or millions — will die because of that? We will all look back at the crucial 2008 election and ask ourselves why were weren’t able to support Gen. Patreus’ new strategy, which was beginning to be successful. And then we will remember Harry Reid’s cynicism and political ploys. Democrats win but millions die. Just like in 1976. Except then, the enemy was not interested in following us home. This enemy is.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009792.php
“The Five Myths of Harry”
Interesting reading, though I doubt the hard core partisans will be moved by the truth, since the party has become more important than reality.
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQ1ZWNiZjhmNGMwNGVlMWRjOTI4ZjU1YTk5MmRkM2U=
Complete text of Liberman’s response to Reid.
Excerpt:
David Broder, a political moderate, offers a scathing review of Senator Reid: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502407.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I personally liked Senator Reid’s comments about Vice President Cheney, and I think this war is a disastrous morass with no end in sight (until 2008 anyway). I do not pay much attention to the criticisms of Reid by right wing blogs or columnists (I am not sure right wing partisans are any more moveable by truth than left wing partisans). But I do pay attention to careful and moderate writers like Broder. If Senator Reid is offending a moderate like Broder, that says to me he should tone down his rhetoric and perhaps try to shore up his support among his party.
Geoff,
#11
Ah yes, because Bush and company are perfect angels when it comes to the politicizing of this war. They would NEVER do something like that! Heavens no. They would never force a vote on a resolution to go to war a mere month before a Congressional election. They would never lie before another election that their secretary of defense will stay on the job for the rest of the term only to fire him two days after the election. Nah, not this administration. They NEVER politicize war.
Are you really this blind, Geoff?
Continuing my reply to your comments, Geoff:
Ironically in the 70s Nixon and Kissinger laid out their political plan, to delay the ending of the war until after the 1972 election so that Nixon would win. Play up that Nixon will end the war, and take out the winds pushing McGovern’s sails. Nixon even contacted the North Vietnamese (through the Chinese) relaying this message, that after the election, they will turn over all of Vietnam to their rule. Then at home, Nixon and Kissinger would work to portray this “defeat” as a cause of the Democrats, who pressed for the defunding of the war. And what do you know, that’s how it played out. Want the evidence? Read it yourself:
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/more-commentary-on-bushs-iraq-plan/
Rosa Brooks wrote in the LA Times:
Geoff has revealed that this is the same strategy Republicans want to use today. Run out the clock on the Bush administration. Force the next administration to end the war. And then blame that administration for not “following through with the plan.” Then in 2012, Republicans can portray themselves as the real defenders of the nation, even though it is their own actions that brought about our defeat in Iraq.
It is a strategy that worked before. And they will try to do it again. Geoff has revealed it.
And you talk to me about politicizing the war! Ha!
Continuing my reply to your comments, Geoff:
Ironically in the 70s Nixon and Kissinger laid out their political plan, to delay the ending of the war until after the 1972 election so that Nixon would win. Play up that Nixon will end the war, and take out the winds pushing McGovern’s sails. Nixon even contacted the North Vietnamese (through the Chinese) relaying this message, that after the election, they will turn over all of Vietnam to their rule. Then at home, Nixon and Kissinger would work to portray this “defeat” as a cause of the Democrats, who pressed for the defunding of the war. And what do you know, that’s how it played out. Want the evidence? Read it yourself:
http://thegooddemocrat.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/more-commentary-on-bushs-iraq-plan/
Rosa Brooks wrote in the LA Times:
Geoff has revealed that this is the same strategy Republicans want to use today. Run out the clock on the Bush administration. Force the next administration to end the war. And then blame that administration for not “following through with the plan.” Then in 2012, Republicans can portray themselves as the real defenders of the nation, even though it is their own actions that brought about our defeat in Iraq.
It is a strategy that worked before. And they will try to do it again. Geoff has revealed it.
And you talk to me about politicizing the war! Ha!
Fun fact of the day, Senator Reid has a lower approval rating than Vice President Cheney according to the latest Harris Poll. Pelosi isn’t doing much better. (But she is beating Bush and Cheney).
(The percentage is their “positive” rating according to this poll)
President Bush – 28%
Vice President Cheney – 25%
House Speaker Pelosi – 30%
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – 22%
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,95786.shtml
I’m not particularly impressed by opinion polls since I think they hide alot of ambivalence but it is fun to point out since we hear so often about the President’s low approval numbers. Guess what, they ALL suck.
Ah yes, because Bush and company are perfect angels when it comes to the politicizing of this war. They would NEVER do something like that!
One can join in the choruses of “a pox on both their houses.” After all on the corruption issues the Democrats haven’t shown themselves much better than the prior Republican leadership in Congress. Why should incompetence is military matters be any different?
I’ll say this for Bush. The latest General in Iraq appears to be doing a good job. It is debatable whether it is too late. One wishes he was there running the counter-insurgency back in 2004. If things in Bagdad don’t look better by the fall though I’ll probably join in the choruses for a limited pull out. But not until then.
Clark,
Why wait until the fall?
Dan, just to be clear: what I support is continuing our involvement in Iraq at whatever level the commanders on the ground deem necessary until the job is done. How do I define “job is done?” I define it by neutralizing the threat of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, keeping them to a relatively small level of activity until the Iraqi security forces can a)take care of the terrorist threat themselves and b)be strong enough to fend off Iran. This may take years, and I will support this same policy if Hillary Clinton is the president in 2009. If Hillary signs on to some kind of policy like this, I will support her on this issue 100 percent.
I think this is the moral thing to do because it prevents region-wide instability, which will cause greater bloodshed. It is also the moral thing to do because it will cause relatively fewer American deaths than a policy of appeasement.
History has shown us that appeasement means more death, more violence and more instability.
I couldn’t care less if Bush and/or Nixon did things for political reasons only in the past, although I don’t agree with Dan’s spin on this. I am concerned with what our policies should be now and what the choices are now. Harry Reid’s policies (as far as he has outlined them) only mean more instability and death for the region in the long run. There is no way I can support that.
Dan, I will ask you once again as nicely as I can to not make this a personal issue. Your quotes are personal, calling me “blind,” etc. I would like to appeal to your basic sense of decency to not attack me or other people on this board with such personal comments. Thank you.
Geoff,
The commanders on the ground were against the “surge.” When Bush presented Kagan’s “surge” plan the commanders on the ground said it wouldn’t work, so Bush fired them. The commanders on the ground said before the war that you would need at least 400,000 combat troops and Donald Rumsfeld fired them.
Al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we went there. To “neutralize” them now in Iraq would require at least 500,000 combat troops. The sad part about General Petraeus (a smart man) is that he just finished updating the Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual. In it, he states himself that for a counterinsurgency to actually work, you need at least 20 combat soldiers for every 1000 people (or about 1 combat soldier per 50 civilians). In a city the size of Baghdad, that requires 120,000 combat troops. For all of Iraq, before the “surge” began, we had a total of about 70,000 combat troops, plus an additional 70,000 support troops, plus who knows how many private contractors (my sister is one of them). So, Fred Kagan’s “surge” plan for Baghdad calls for an additional 20,000 combat troops (though secretly they increased the number to the 30,000s). The reason for so few? Because there are no more troops available. They have to increase tour duty times and add additional tours to soldiers going home. In fact, they’ve got so few soldiers that they are sending wounded soldiers back into the battlefield! How shameful! In any case, if we were to place ALL the combat troops we have in all of Iraq into Baghdad (70,000) and add Kagan’s “surge” (20,000), that still leaves us 30,000 combat troops short, and that’s just for the six million residents of Baghdad. If we apply General Petraeus’ own numbers for the whole country of Iraq, you require approximately 400,000 combat troops to have a successful counterinsurgency plan. Imagine that, that’s what General Shinseki warned we needed before Rumsfeld fired him.
In any case, even General Petraeus was smart enough to state publicly that no military operation will solve Iraq. It is now in the hands of politics. And while there has been a reduction in the violence (more on this in a moment), there has been absolutely no progression politically, the one and only thing that can actually bring about success in Iraq. The political sphere is as intractable as ever. In fact it has gotten worse with the Army’s ill-advised creation of ghettos…er, I mean ‘gated communities’ across Baghdad. You think Sunnis have any better reason to trust Shi’ites now?
Now about that violence. Let’s see, we’ve got bombs going off in the green zone, spectacular, brazen attacks against soldiers stationed outside their super-max bases, car bombs killing hundreds, but hey, Shi’ite death squads are not executing Sunnis like they used to, so the “surge” is showing signs of “success.” You can BET the Shi’ites are remembering these car bomb attacks that kill 150 here and 140 there. You can BET they are marking down just who they want to go after as soon as they can. They are holding back because their leader Al-Sadr told them to. But how long their patience lasts, well, we just don’t know. The more and more these suicide bombers hit Shi’ites, the more and more they will want revenge. But alas, poor General Petraeus just doesn’t have enough troops.
Meanwhile, your other concern is about Al-Qaida, Geoff. The amount of Al-Qaida members in Iraq is quite small actually, though they do lots of damage and are overly-hyped by Americans (who seek all justification possible they can for their war of choice). Al-Qaida loves having us in Iraq. What great target practice! Thousands of Americans to choose from. Hone those skills boys. Learn America’s weaknesses in the battlefield. Meanwhile, the real danger, Al-Qaida in Pakistan, looms large for the future. Here they sit comfortably, protected by more than just the Pushtun tribal leaders. They are protected by Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. We’re not going to ever attack Pakistan. We’re not ever going to undermine the highly corrupt dictatorship of General Musharraf. Because doing so would put those very extremists in charge of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Yet, at the same time, not doing anything leaves Al-Qaida all the breathing room they need in Pakistan to rebuild. Meanwhile, Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al-Qaida and 9/11 burns to the ground.
You want to fix all this, Geoff? This is what I recommend. Leave Iraq. Shift all our forces back to Afghanistan where they should have been and remained from the beginning. Let Iraqis handle things on their own. They just might get more bloody, but you know what, you’re not going to stop that. Let them at it, and let the strongest come out on top. Meanwhile, focus your power against the real enemy: Al-Qaida in Pakistan. The poison grows there, blackening that poor country. That’s where our real threat is. Not in Iraq, and not in Iran. In Pakistan.
Dan, don’t disagree with your larger point, but I disagree on the timing. Al Qaeda is contained in Pakistan/Afghanistan for now. We need to continue to monitor the situation and continue our efforts there. But our military efforts in Iraq need to continue, for moral, humanitarian and strategic reasons.
In good conscience, I can’t stand by and watch the chaos that will ensue in Iraq if we leave. I can’t stand by and watch Iran invade Iraq. I simply don’t think it’s the right thing to do morally. And from a strategic perspective, an emboldened Iran is not a good thing for us or our allies.
I salute you for thinking strategically, but I simply think you are wrong. But the good news for you is that your strategy is probably what the next Democratic president will do in 2009. You will most likely get a chance to see if it works or not.
Al-Qaida is contained in Pakistan/Afghanistan? Really? I’m sorry, Geoff, but I know your heart is set on us “fixing Iraq” but the reality is that Al-Qaida is not “contained” anywhere, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Pakistan. They stay in Pakistan because it is a safe haven, but they certainly move around wherever they desire.
Why does our military need to remain in Iraq? It was our military that caused the breakdown of law and order in the first place! Why should we trust it to create that law and order again?
In good conscience, I couldn’t stand watching my country start this war and create the chaos now found in Iraq. How horrible! How utterly utterly horrible. What is worse is that those who lied to us remain in positions of power and influence in our country, continuing the bamboozling act.
Iraq cannot be fixed with America in Iraq. As long as we remain there, the problem will persist. We are the cause of the problem, Geoff. This is something I think too hard for some Americans to grasp. Yes, America can make some awful mistakes. This is one of them.
This is something you should have thought about before invading Iraq. Iran is the biggest benefactor of us removing Saddam. We removed the only thing that kept Iran in check for so long: Saddam Hussein. There’s a reason why Reagan supported Saddam during the 1980s.
I’m sorry to say, Geoff, that you are on the wrong side of history then. I implore you to rethink your views of Iraq and Al-Qaida. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more trouble we will create, the more problems we will find, and the more Al-Qaida strengthens. Porter Goss said it best:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html
Richard Clarke adds:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/04/25/2007-04-25_put_bushs_puppy_dog_terror_theory_to_sle.html
Why should we wait until a Democrat comes to power in order to do what is right, Geoff? The surge is not working. The political maneuvering that needs to happen in Iraq is a flop, and I see absolutely no signs of any change in the next few months, let alone next few years.
Barack Obama had this exchange with Condoleezza Rice in January:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
That was in January. We’re now approaching May, and no political solutions in sight. What did Ms. Rice say in January? “I think that over the next several months they’re going to have to show that.” “Or else what?”… “Or this plan, or this plan is not—this plan is not going to work.”
Finally, Ms. Rice, you told the truth.
I note that Senator Reid is not the only LDS senator who has had an “evolvement” of his views about the Iraq was. Senator Gordon Smith has also switched from being a strong supporter to an opponent, and was one of two republican senators (along with Senator Hagel) who just voted for the bill with the deadline to begin withdrawals.
Another “hard core partisan[ who can’t be] moved by the truth”?
I think the most laughable comment on this thread (it’s equally laughable as a right-wing talking point in general) is that if we leave Iraq there will soon follow another al qaeda attack in America. Evidently, all flights from Muslim countries to the US connect in Baghdad. There are minions of angry jihadists who would come and attack America if only they could, but, unfortunately for them, our army is bogged down in Iraq.
Yes, there are al-qaeda style forces in Iraq–lots of them. And yes, they are there to fight Americans. But they are fighting us there because they choose to, not because we are forcing them to. They care more about controlling the future of the middle east than they do about indiscriminately slaughtering American citizens. Their actions are carefully calculated and strategic–not arbitrary, pointless, masturbatory attempts to drink the blood of infidels. If Osama bin Laden found a genie lamp 10 years ago, he would have wished for America to invade a predominantly Muslim country that hadn’t attacked it. If he had subsequently consulted an oracle, he would have been advised to pray for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to hold prominent positions in an American administration and then to orchestrate a dramatic attack on American soil. Bin Laden does not want America out of Iraq. Our presence there is the best thing that ever happened to him, and he knows that if we leave, Shia radicals under the direction of Al Sadr and likely with the support of the PM will have a free hand to deal with the Sunni insurgency (including foreign fighters) once and for all.
I’m not saying this speaks for withdrawing immediately, but if containing al qaeda in Iraq and preventing them from coming here is all we want, I think the best thing we could do at this point is leave.
Brad,
Their ultimate goal is less important than the lesson that was taught on 9/11, that the terrorists will take the fight to the American soil if they believe it will get them what they want. Right now our army is busy fighting and killing the terrorists, were we to leave they will be given the breathing room necessary to make further preparations for attacks on our mainland. Their final goal is not to have us leave Iraq, and if a second 9/11 will get them the result they want they will attempt one.
You do realize what this would mean to all the Sunni civilians don’t you? American forces are keeping both sides in check, you would not be comfortable with the results were we to leave no matter what the ultimate outcome was.
Hmm…that came out wrong. What I mean is this: “Having us leave Iraq is not their final goal…” in other words, after we’re gone they will still want more.
Why wait until the fall?
Because I don’t think we can tell it the current efforts have failed until then. While I understand Sen. Reid’s pessimism I think it is, at this stage, premature. That is I think the Democrats are doing a lot of the same bad thinking that the Bushies did. Making their meta-narrative control their judgments and not allowing inquiry to take place.
I think the most laughable comment on this thread (it’s equally laughable as a right-wing talking point in general) is that if we leave Iraq there will soon follow another al qaeda attack in America. Evidently, all flights from Muslim countries to the US connect in Baghdad. There are minions of angry jihadists who would come and attack America if only they could, but, unfortunately for them, our army is bogged down in Iraq.
That’s a rather simplistic way to view it. I think one of the big problems with Bush’s Iraq plan, something that in my mind makes him the worst of all recent Presidents, is that Iraq is already training terrorists. But if we leave it really will be somewhat like the Russians leaving Afghanistan. The fighters don’t all disappear. They merely take their fight elsewhere. Thus the rise of Al Queda.
They won’t come by a flight from Bagdad. But they will be embolden by our weakness. (Look at how Bin Laden described our flight from Somalia) And they will take the attack to us.
Bush really, really, really screwed things up. Things today are so much worse than they were even in the days after 9/11. Yes we’ve destabilized Al Queda but we’ve laid the groundwork for much worse. The only hope, in my view, is to stabilize Iraq. I know some, like Murtha, think our pulling out really will stabilize Iraq. However to me this is wishful thinking on par with Cheney thinking we’d be greeting with roses in Iraq like we’d just liberated Paris in WWII. Folks have their ideas of what will happen and aren’t too concerned about evaluating if it is true.
Same problem, different party. (On so many levels – the pork and corruption is depressing. Almost as depressing as seeing that the Republican leadership learned nothing from the last election.)
How on earth is our presence in Iraq forcing the terrorists to be there? Are you honestly so seduced by the militant rhetoric and circular logic of the administration to think that the presence of our army in Iraq is the only thing keeping bin Laden and his cohorts from launching another major attack in the US? If they wanted to attack us here right now, why would our army in Iraq stop them? You simply take as axiomatic–as some kind of self-evident truth–that our overstretched armed forces are somehow holding down an impenetrable battle line, the abandoning of which will instantly grant our enemies unfettered access to American cities. How exactly is it that we are forcing them to fight us there rather than here? I’ll grant that they are fighting us there, but the assertion that we are forcing them to engage us there (as opposed to them choosing to fight us there because we created a terrorist-breeding haven there) requires proving. Or maybe establishing the terrorist haven was part of the grander strategy? Does any sentient person really believe that there are less bin Laden-style terrorists in the world today than there were four years ago?
“You do realize what this would mean to all the Sunni civilians don’t you? American forces are keeping both sides in check, you would not be comfortable with the results were we to leave no matter what the ultimate outcome was.”
I absolutely realize that leaving would result in a bloodbath. But that only means we should stay if it is presumed that we will ever be able to leave without unleashing a bloodbath. I think our presence is doing some good right now (in the sense of keeping sides somewhat in check, maintaining some degree of stability). I also think our presence is doing some harm (provoking anti-American sentiment inside Iraq, galvanizing global support for al-Qaeda style groups, furnishing an excuse for Iraqi political factions to eschew compromise). I think any reasonable person would have to agree that the presence of American troops in Iraq has benefits as well as drawbacks. The question is, in the long term, do the positive consequences outweigh the negative? Does our stabilizing effect outweigh our provocative effect? Will staying longer mean that the ethnic cleansing following withdrawal will be more or less horrific than if we leave now? Right now, we seem to be banking on the hope that the 20,000 soldier increase will furnish enough added stability to enable the political compromise that we view as a necessary prerequisite for turning over security and sovereignty to the Iraqi government. But that presumes that the only thing preventing such a compromise is the current (or pre-surge) level of violence in and around Baghdad. So far, the violence hasn’t substantially decreased. And I don’t see any real signs of progress toward compromise. Maybe I’m just pessimistic, but it seems like all we’re doing is prolonging (and hopefully not exacerbating) the inevitable, and expending enormous amounts of human and financial capital in the process. Whether you are inclined to share my pessimism or not, don’t kid yourself–staying the course now, even with an escalation in Baghdad, is not about dealing a death blow to our enemies. Even Petraeus admits that. So, in the sense of “we have to defeat our enemies there so they don’t follow us here,” we’ve already thrown in the towel–or simply acknowledge the reality that doing so would be impossible without instituting a draft and (gasp!!!) raising taxes.
Those still intent on pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq precipitously, and defending Harry Reid’s unseemly remarks should read this exchange between Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn:
HH: I’ve talked with, three hours with Lawrence Wright of The Looming Tower, I have talked with Gaffney, and yesterday with Frederick Kagan. Today, I’m going to talk to Max Boot, I talked to Michael O’Hanlon yesterday. Generally, we are living in extraordinarily terrible times, and it looks as thought a lot of our political class doesn’t know, or will not pay attention in a serious way to it.
MS: Well, they are paying attention, and they’re doing some truly terrible things for the worst possible reasons, for the most silly and trivial short term political opportunism. And again, I speak here as a foreigner, but I know for example during recent decades, there were many messy, unpleasant colonial struggles, or what were perceived as colonial struggles, that for example, the left wing of the British Labour Party had no enthusiasm for. But they never did what the U.S. Congress has done, which is attempt to cut the legs out of the executive in the middle of a war. It’s well known, for example, that the British Labour Party is basically sympathetic to the Irish nationalist movement, but they never attempted to set a deadline for British troop withdrawal from Northern Ireland, and impose it on the executive. I mean, this is an extraordinary¦I think this is an extraordinarily immature opportunist act by the political class in Washington.
HH: And if you read, we had three very serious intellectuals, Fred Kagan, Max Boot and Reuel Marc Gerecht go to Iraq, spend time with Petraeus, spend time in the field, and they all came back, and they all said the same thing, which is it’s bad, it’s getting better, it’s not lost, and it can be won. And that appears not to have any impact whatsoever on Harry Reid and his people.
MS: No, because in a sense, they are, that’s bad news to them. You know, they prefer the certainty of defeat. And this is what’s so terrible. I mean, Amir Taheri, I think it was, wrote a column today saying, well, you know, if Iraq is lost, as Harry Reid says, who’s won? If someone’s lost a war, then presumably, who’s won? Al Qaeda hasn’t won in Iraq, the rump Baathists haven’t won in Iraq, the Sunni minority hasn’t won in Iraq. If America has lost, someone must have won. Well unfortunately, the way the Democratic Party look at it is if America loses, the Democrats win. In other words, if George W. Bush loses the war in Iraq, the Democrats can be the beneficiaries of it. They will be, in effect, the political winners of the war in Iraq. And I think that’s complete nonsense. I think not just Islamists, but every other troublemaker on the planet, whether it’s North Korea, whether it’s the Chinese, whether it’s Hugo Chavez, whether it’s the Russians, indeed whether it’s the European Union, will look on America simply as a superpower that has lost all credibility.
HH: Now Mark Steyn, yesterday, I had former Congressman Bob Schaffer on the program. He had just come back from Afghanistan. He was carrying with him a recent edition of the only English daily in Kabul, the Daily Outlook of Afghanistan.
MS: Right.
HH: And there above the fold in large caps was the headline, ‘Iraq War Lost, Says Leader of Democrats.’
MS: Yes.
HH: It was like a telegram to the Taliban.
Geoff, it’s not really the Democrats who are crying defeat.
It’s the American people.
The majority of them.
And we happen to live in a democracy, just in case you forgot.
Actually, Seth R, we happen to live in a republic, not a democracy. I am sure you are aware of the difference, but just in case, here’s a good explanation:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
I’m not just being snarky about this. The distinction is crucial. Popular will is swinging against the war. If you put it to a vote, the majority would probably vote against the war. But the Founders deliberately did NOT set up a system where majority rule automatically causes action. The Founders, in their wisdom, set up all kinds of checks and balances. So the majority of legislators are against the war. They will send that message to the president, and he will veto it. They will have to come back with something else. Eventually, majority rule will win out (most likely after the 2008 election), but not immediately, and the Founders wanted it that way.
Majority rule often means oppression of minorities. Republican rule generally protects minorities.
And, just as a reminder, just because the majority favors something does not mean it is right. The vast majority of British citizens in 1938 wanted peace with Hitler at all costs. Not a great position to have taken.
To follow up on my #35, if you read Civil War history you will find that in late 1863-early 1864, the majority of northerners were in favor of some kind of accommodation with the South that would allow them to leave the union. So, if we had been a democracy then, and the issue had been put to a vote, the union would have been split up. But we are a republic, so Lincoln soldiered on, just a Pres. Bush is doing now. The result was that as the war started looking better Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 and of course the north won in 1865.
It is not brave or moral to give up on a cause that is right because the majority is against you. As any Church member knows, it is brave and moral to stand up for what you think is right even if the majority is against you.
Clark et al
I highly recommend you read the following:
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198
It is written by an active Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling.
That’s just his introduction.
Now before you start castigating him as some loony leftist, know this:
Geoff,
#33,
“Very serious intellectuals?” Hardly. They are the worst culprits of this foolish war! But Mr. Hewitt has never been one to be honest to Americans. And in this case he is lying yet again. Kagan, Boot and Gerecht are going to see what they want to see in Iraq, and not what they have to see. So sad that so many still put stock in these intellectually bereft men.
Geoff,
#35,
In this case, however, what the majority favor is actually right. Unfortunately, the majority favored the war in 2002 to our utter detriment. But the “majority” has learned the truth: the war was wrong from the start. Unfortunately it will take a long time for the minority to learn this.
Geoff,
That’s noble and all, but unfortunately such talk is foolish when the evidence is starkly against your view. At that point you stand for your point out of sheer stubbornness rather than for solid reasons. Our war in Iraq is not right, nor was it ever right. It was wrong from the start. It was sold on false pretenses. It was shoddily executed. And worst of all, no one has been held accountable for these grand failures.
Dan, I’m actually pretty sympathetic to a lot of what he says. I had a sinking feeling in those early days when the report of the war gaming for Iraq not allowing insurgencies came out. While the Bush administration deserves the brunt of the blame for how the war was planned (Rumsfeld and Cheney in particular IMO) so to did a lot of the generals. Of course those generals who did speak up were punished. So things are a tad more complex than it appears.
But I fully agree that one of the greatest failures of the aftermath of Viet Nam was that rather than plan for how to deal with insurgencies the army decides that they would do their utmost to avoid insurgencies. It adopted an out of sight out of mind mentality. Unfortunately the battles of the 21st century will not be big armored battles like the army enjoyed planning for. Our foe isn’t the Red Army. It is insurgencies. Further given American experience in Viet Nam, Soviet experience in Afghanistan, and American experience in Iraq it is clear that any enemy will use the insurgency route.
I think the army is learning and from all the reports I’m hearing the current general in charge of the surge is doing quite well – although given how bad things are it’s likely not to be enough. But certainly the army needs to change.
But by and large I agree with nearly everything in that article and have so thought for quite a long time now.
The biggest problem we face isn’t just so many Generals wanting to ignore insurgencies, it isn’t just the Bush administration not facing up to them (and perhaps still not facing up to them), it is that the Democrats won’t face up to it either. They do prefer to imagine that we can have a conventional war with Al Queda. Reid was right that the war is a mess. Unfortunately his solution isn’t to find a way to defeat radical Islam. It is to give up.
In this case, however, what the majority favor is actually right.
Was the majority right when something like 90% wanted war with Iraq?
One of the many, many failures of the last 5 years has been with the leaders of America explaining things to America. Bush did a horrible job. But the Democrats aren’t doing much better. They are selling it to America like we can just pull out of Iraq the way we did in Viet Nam and the problems will just be “over there” and not affecting us.
While I disagree with the view that our presence is generating more problems than (potentially) solving, I can at least understand that mentality. What I can’t accept is the idea that pulling out would be the end to our problems. As if the Middle East doesn’t remain a huge danger to us.
One can justifiably criticize the so-called neo-Cons who put ideology and wishful thinking above realism and investigation; the Democrats are doing exactly the same thing.
Interesting:
Yet Reid thinks he’s going to gain seats in Congress with this gamble……
Here was the initial source for the above post.
Ivan, those numbers are fascinating. I just don’t get it — how do you square those numbers with the 2006 results and Bush’s poll numbers? I honestly believe there’s a disconnect of some kind there. You can’t say it’s all the earmarks issue.
Geoff I don’t see the disconnect. Even folks, like me, who are for the war can judge Bush’s management of the war as massively incompetent. As for the 2006 elections, I think that was in part a judgment on the war’s conduct but more particularly the congress’ conduct. On matters of ethics, pork, and maintaining an eye on the Executive Branch. While I’ve no love for the current Democrats, it’s hard to deny the Republicans had it coming on so many levels. What’s very disheartening for me is how the congressional Republican leadership has learned nothing.
Geoff B.
Remember, Rahm Emmanuel’s strategy that was so successful in gaining seats for the Democrats in congress was to recruit social conservatives as candidates who didn’t make the war their primary issue. The only candidate in a contested race who made the war the centerpiece of his campaign, Ned Lamont, had his head handed to him by Joltin’ Joe Lieberman.
Yes, I think the current Democratic position that the election was a referendum on the war is at best wishful thinking and at worst revisionist. Having said that though, clearly had the war been going better Democrats wouldn’t be picking up as many seats. I expect in the next election for Democrats to increase their majorities and probably win the Presidency. (I have hopes for Thompson, but even with him running it’ll be an up hill battle)
Thanks, guys, your comments make sense. I still would have thought poll numbers would be different than what Ivan posted just based on anecdotal evidence among people I know. I am very encouraged with the fortitude the American people are showing on this issue.
I am not sure that the poll figures Ivan linked to give a fair or complete picture of sentiments of the public. For example, the National Review article, which was linked to, does not mention the poll published today by the Wall Street Journal and NBC.
That poll includes the following interesting conclusions:
“the poll shows that 56 percent say they agree more with the Democrats in Congress who want to set a deadline for troop withdrawal, versus the 37 percent who say they agree with Bush that there shouldn’t be a deadline.
“What’s more, 55 percent believe that victory in Iraq isn’t possible. And 49 percent say the situation in Iraq has gotten worse in the last three months since Bush announced his so-called troop surge. Thirty-seven percent say the situation has stayed about the same, and just 12 percent think it has improved.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/
Geoff,
It’s a matter of how a question is asked. Say for example that I ask the following question:
Do you hope we achieve “victory” in Iraq?
If you ask that question, you’re most likely to get an answer in the affirmative. The way a question is phrased gives you your poll results. Any good political scientist knows that most polling questions are leading the citizen to an answer. Of course we all want “victory” in Iraq. I know of no one who doesn’t.
Now if I were to ask the following question:
Is “victory” achievable in Iraq, based on current circumstances?
This is where you will find most Americans answering no. Do Americans want to “win” in Iraq? OF course they do. Do they think it is possible under the current circumstances? Of course not.
Another defeatist left-wing partisan: “[President Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
“Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
Clark,
#41,
NO it isn’t. You are letting your political bias color your view here, Clark. Which Democrat has called on a conventional war with Al-Qaida?
Secondly, do you really think you can “defeat radical Islam?” Just how do you defeat such an ideology? By invading Islamic countries? Such ideologies are not defeated by military action, Clark. They never have and they never will be. In fact, the equation is wrong to begin with. Our goal should not be the “defeat of radical Islam” as that is impossible. It should be the discrediting of radical Islam as a concept for the 21st Century. Unfortunately neo-cons have made it the very opposite, the defining ideology of the 21st Century. Neo=cons, in their lust for violence, have thrust this corrupt ideology on the center stage, giving it far more value than fools like Bin Laden could ever do. They call it the “defining conflict of our generation,” putting “radical Islam” on such influential levels as Nazism and Communism, when in fact, radical Islam does not even come close to having the same ability to call such numbers of people to bow to their power. It is a disservice to the truth and to the facts on the ground to compare radical Islam to Nazism and Communism. They do not even come close to having the same power or influence upon the world. The only way radical Islam could ever start getting anywhere close to that strength is if moderate Islam is forced in their direction. Now think very carefully, what could cause moderate Islam to shift towards the radicals?
The even more troublesome part of this whole debacle is the notion that our country and our culture is somehow in mortal danger from this “threat.” Radical Islam can barely hold together one country (Iran) let alone get any power anywhere else in societies that would be susceptible to its call, yet somehow this Christian nation of ours is close to falling on its heels to Shari’a law? Even Europe. Seriously disingenuous and hyperbolic and certainly not helpful in understanding our “enemy.”
If you look at the bill that Senator Reid’s Senate and Rep. Pelosi’s House passed, it is remarkably alike to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, the one Bush dismissed of course.
Clark, I think it is time you look past your conservative view and acknowledge that the Democrats are not defeatist, nor wish harm to come to our fine nation. We’re looking at this war far more clearly than Republicans are, who are so politically tied to this war that cogent judgment has surpassed their abilities.
We want to win in Iraq, Clark. Unfortunately, Bush is an abject failure and supporting anything that he advocates will ultimately lead to more failure. You want to fix Iraq? Remove Bush from power. Don’t run out the clock on his administration. Remove him and Cheney NOW! There are no strategies that he and Cheney can come up with that will save them, Iraq, and our soldiers anymore. They must be held accountable.
Clark,
#42,
Please show me which Democrat has said this.
Not a lot of time, so some will have to await until later.
Secondly, do you really think you can “defeat radical Islam?” Just how do you defeat such an ideology?
You contain it.
Do you honestly think it’s all futile?
The even more troublesome part of this whole debacle is the notion that our country and our culture is somehow in mortal danger from this “threat.” Neo=cons, in their lust for violence, have thrust this corrupt ideology on the center stage, giving it far more value than fools like Bin Laden could ever do.
Lust for violence? More value? Sorry, I guess the sight of those two buildings collapsed made me forget just how insignificant it was.
The even more troublesome part of this whole debacle is the notion that our country and our culture is somehow in mortal danger from this “threat.”
You’re right. I mean if these clowns had WMDs we’d have nothing to fear for our country or culture…
The issue isn’t them conquering us or destroying us. It is an issue of our economics and massive loss of life. Seriously, just look at 9/11. Our country couldn’t take a string of those.
To me you’re demonstrating my point about “conventional.” You’re comparing it to the old Soviet threat when the nature of the threat is completely different. It is a guerilla warfare threat. And I’m flabberghast that you see that as minor.
You want to fix Iraq? Remove Bush from power. Don’t run out the clock on his administration. Remove him and Cheney NOW!
As you know I’m no fan of either but this to me is naive thinking. (Besides which the elections are a year away – come on) What we need are some competent generals and Bush giving them what they need. That seems to be (from what I am reading) what we have now. The question is whether it’s too late.
But I have zero faith in Reid or Bush. To me they are two sides of a single coin.
Clark,
Just how do you contain an ideology? By invading a nation of moderates and secularists? By threatening two other Islamic nations?
Obviously the most spectacular attack ever would make you think that. But really they always were always will be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, unless we play them up. Look at them, they are cave dwellers. They hold no power over any nation. Their ideology only grows when the West plays right into their hands. They love seeing us in Iraq. It proves their point, and gets more adherents signing up.
Right, and I wholeheartedly agree. I don’t ever want to see another such attack on our country, but the way we’ve responded is not protecting us in the long run.
You’re saying my view is “conventional?” What have we done to this point? Invade two countries with conventional forces! And you talk to me about waging conventional warfare? In Afghanistan in 2001 conventional warfare was justified and required. Afghanistan needed to be purged of the evil. We should have stayed there and brought Afghanistan to its feet. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and little to do with terrorism, especially our enemy, Al-Qaida.
What do we do now after this debacle? It really starts with the removal of our current leaders. If they remain in power, then we won’t have any change in the strategy that needs changing, and for yet another two years, our real enemy will continue building their strength over in Pakistan. And no, in these next two years, with Bush and Cheney in power, Iraq will continue being a bloodbath. There is no strategy in their arsenal that will work.
I guess you think it is okay to let Bush and Cheney run out the clock on their administration. You know what they are going to do? They are going to run out the clock, not fix Iraq and then blame the loss on the next administration. They are that bad. Meanwhile more Iraqis and Americans will die so that Bush and Cheney can save face.
Here’s a good post:
http://instapundit.com/archives2/004604.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009815.php
Ivan,
You mean I should trust Mr. Instapundit to get it right about Iraq?
http://instapundit.com/archives/008879.php
Somehow I don’t see him as a good example to know what the hell he is talking about when it comes to Iraq. Try again, Ivan.
Dan –
this is the last time I will ever respond to you directly:
You are a political troll.
1. You have repeatedly used cuss words in your responses (you’ve cussed at me twice over the past month), you are rude and refer to other posters as “foolish” (among other more pejorative terms). You engage in vicious ad hominem attacks rather than reasonable debate. You see Repulicans as inherently vile and idioitic and Democrats as noble and good. Whatever.
2. You do not think freely, nor are you a moderate, despite your claims. In relation to any issue dealing with President Bush or the Iraq war always and automatically take the far left Democratic side and repeat talking points without variation.
3. In other words, there is absolutely no reason for me to take you seriously. I regret even responding to you now, as I made a decision a few weeks ago to ignore you completely, but since you cussed at me again, I figured you should at least know why I am going to ignore you from now on.
As far a quoting the Instapundit, I was more linking to something I liked and might have informed the debate, rather than something I 100% agreed with.
But politics have begun to bore me and I really should be writing my dissertation, so I’m going to vanish for awhile anyway…..
I am not a troll. But I will forcefully challenge your views. If you cannot handle them, don’t respond.
Dan,
As you well know I don’t care for Bush or Cheney. However I strongly feel that Democrats pushing for impeachment over political disagreement ought strongly think through it. That would be bad for America on so many grounds. But we’ve debated that before. In any case impeachment will never happen and even Democratic leaders don’t appear to want it. (For obvious reasons – it’d help Republicans whereas right now Republicans are still self-destructing)
Regarding Instapundit, while I enjoy reading the blog I don’t take him terribly seriously on Iraq. He doesn’t have a lot of credibility on the issue. Although he does have the occasionally interesting link.
Regarding conventionality, I don’t merely mean conventional forces. I recognize that the Democrats want conventional forces to pull out and just use limited SpecWar raids. But beyond that they feel that they can somehow just talk to Iran and Syria and solve things. By conventional I mean a kind of Cold War mentality of containment – as if Radical Islam were like Soviet Russia.
Your point about ideology demonstrates the issue. (IMO) This isn’t Adam Smith vs. Karl Marx. Something quite a bit different is going on. The main reason I was for the Iraq war is I felt the only way to change the middle east was to setup a functioning Democracy. Unfortunately Bush blew it so bad that things are now far worse than before.
But please don’t put me in the false dichotomy I think you are of saying it’s either Bush’s way or the Democratic way. (Although the Democratic way is so ill defined that trying to pin it down is like trying to pin down running water) I don’t know what will work in Iraq right now. The biggest problem, as I think you agree, is that so many Iraqi leaders don’t want compromise. However the best thing for Al Queda is chaos in Iraq. No one has yet explained to me how the pull out would avoid that rather than accentuate it. (Beyond bringing up dubious parallels to Viet Nam)
Certainly ideology can’t be defeated purely by force. But this isn’t just about ideology.
I’m quite open to Democrat solutions. I read regularly most of the main Democrat blogs. So far I don’t hear solutions. I hear wishful thinking that, to me, is scarily reminiscent of the Bushies prior to the Iraq invasion.
Geoff,
Actually talking is highly efficient. All the bombs couldn’t get the Northern Irish to get together. But the talking did. And yes, Sinn Fein was a terrorist organization, but look what happens when you talk to them, you get a resolution. It does work, Geoff. You have to take a risk though.
This is a laudable goal, Geoff, and one I wholeheartedly agree with you on. However, why Iraq? I mean, why not work on getting democracy in, say, Egypt? I mean those Egyptians are begging for democracy. Why did we not stop our support for Mubarrak and let the winds blow which way (which is what happens in a democracy)? Why Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had few ties to Al-Qaida. Iraq has not had any kind of successful democracy at any point in its history, yet you thought invading it would somehow transform it into a pro-Western democracy?
I understand that some felt we’d get another Wave, like the one in Eastern Europe in 1989. But the thing some are not understanding is that that Wave took decades to build. The Middle East is not ready for that kind of wave, not as long as we continue supporting corrupt dictatorships in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
You want democracy in the Middle East? Pull the crutches from underneath the old codgers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. You may not like the results, but at least the people of those countries would finally get a chance to choose.
That’s right. What incentive do they have, what allegiance do they have to the nation of Iraq? None that I can see. It is such a failed state that perhaps the best fate for it is to die and be a bygone of history. Perhaps the best answer is something completely new in what is now known as “Iraq.”
Here’s how you fix Iraq, Geoff.
There really are only two viable options. Option one is to pull out and let Iraqis now deal with their country on their own. This is not “defeat” as some would like to call it. I mean, even by supporters’ logic, if we leave Iraq, al-Qaida follows us, so why would they remain in Iraq? Besides, even Sunnis have been turning against al-Qaida. Removing the American crutches might actually force Iraqis to actually do something. I like the idea of keeping American forces in strength in Kurdistan. Keep the Kurds from declaring their own state and the inevitable Turkish invasion, and you plug up one potential disaster. Now, what other potential disasters would come of this? Well, this is where diplomacy comes into play. Press the Saudis to rein in the Sunni insurgents. You bet Saudis are fronting the costs of the insurgency. Get the Saudis to assure the Sunni insurgents that the Americans are not staying permanently and are leaving the country. Get them to stop killing Shi’ites.
Next, America needs to stop being a stumbling block in a possible peace between Syria and Israel. If the Israelis and the Syrians wish to talk and resolve their concerns about the Golan Heights and Hezbollah, hey, more power to them. Support that action openly and strongly. Bush and his hapless Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been absolutely horrible on the diplomatic front. The worst Secretary of State that I know of. In any case, she will have to talk to Iran. You want the Shi’ites to stop killing Sunnis? Then talk to Iran. Stop this silly “bad behavior” childish rants. Talk to them like adults and hey they may actually respond back like adults. (I thought we learned that lesson from My Fair Lady).
The result of America leaving Iraq does not have to be a disaster. There is a way to make it come out just fine. After all, we will have to leave at some point, and you can bet foreign forces are not going to stop the little tiff between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis anytime soon. Tell me, just how does Bush plan to leave Iraq anyways? Or better, seeing that Bush’s only concern right now is running out the clock, the Republicans, just how do they envision leaving Iraq? The details. I want to see their details, none of this vague “when we achieve ‘victory'” stuff.
The second option is to actually do what General Petraeus’ own Counterinsurgency Field Manual recommends for a successful counterinsurgency, and that is to have 20 combat troops for every 1000 civilians. In a city the size of Baghdad, that means 120,000 combat troops (not including the support troops). For the entire country that means about 400,000 combat troops (and an additional 300-400,000 support troops). Does America have the political will for such an increase?
See, the problem is that General Petraeus cannot do this surge right because he simply has too few troops. Even with the “surge.” Too few. His own numbers tell him he has too few. The surge will not succeed. What happens next? (By the way, I am impressed that General Petraeus is smart enough to know that he has to talk to leaders of the insurgents—and he does so—good man. Condoleezza Rice should learn from him).
Democrats right now are too pre-occupied with taking Bush down. They smell blood. They smell justice finally approaching for all these years of injustice here in America. This is simply a natural consequence of Bush’s divisive politics. I hope Americans learn not to divide America like this ever again. That said, Democrats are also not wanting to provide “a way out” of Iraq, because to do so would mean that they would start taking ownership of the debacle. They want this mill to continue hanging around Bush’s (and the Republicans’) necks. This is their war in Democrats’ eyes—even though many of them out of fear voted for it in the first place—cowards!).
This is Bush’s and the Republicans’ war for good or ill. They lost it. Not Democrats who began speaking out against it. Republicans and their inept leaders lost this war. Why should Democrats fix their problem for them? It just shows that we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place. After all, our real enemy is hiding comfortably in Pakistan as we speak.
oops, I’m sorry Clark, I misread your name and thought you were Geoff. My apologies.
I am not a troll. But I will forcefully challenge your views. If you cannot handle them, don’t respond.
That was the funniest statement I’ve read in days. This response is merely to thank you for the laugh. I had no idea you had a sense of humor.
Oh, wait – that was serious?
Cussing does not equal forceful response, it equals immaturity.
Trust me – I can handle your comments. I get worse every day from my fellow grad students.
But if it helps your ego, just tell yourself I can’t handle your stunning insight, stellar analysis and airtight logic.
bye!
Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.
Dan, the problem isn’t just with talking. (I’m actually all in favor of talking more with the Iranians and Syrians) It is the assumption that talking with a group who wants our nation’s complete and utter destruction will get anywhere. I mean where is the common ground to build upon? This is one of those examples where the Democrats come off as even more naive and ideological than Bush did in 2003. And that’s saying a lot.
I’m all for putting pressure on Egypt. I think we were doing so until Iraq went to hell due to Rumsfeld and Bush.
The Sunnis are turning against Al Queda because of American efforts. Pull America out and…
What’s odd to me is that the Democrat solution (let the Iraqis police themselves and reach a political solution) is exactly Rumsfeld’s failed plan from 2003 – 2004. So the Democrats are advocating we return to the very plan that got us into this mess in the first place.
I should note that regarding popularity of the Democratic proposal I think the prcentages are on Dan’s side. I’d just once again note that support for the invasion in its early days was even higher.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/parsing_the_polls_no_room_for.html
I’m sticking to my guns on the claim that Democrats are taking every bad quality of the Republican leadership the last 5 years and doing it worse.
Clark,
They don’t want our “complete and utter destruction” Clark. That’s all hyperbole and sabre-rattling. Don’t listen to that. The Soviets wanted to destroy us too, yet we talked to them. Why? Because it was logical, sensible, and well, smart.
No it is not, because Rumsfeld never intended for the US military to leave Iraq. Think about it. Why would America build the largest embassy in the world in Iraq if it intended to leave sometime soon? Rumsfeld did NOT have any idea what he was doing. The Democrats’ plan is not anything like what Rumsfeld has done. No Democrat would be that stupid. The problem you don’t seem to be addressing, Clark, is that WE’RE the cause of much of the violence, both violence we inflict upon Iraqis (at least 25,000 Iraqi civilians killed by Americans) and the violence inflicted upon us by the insurgents who don’t want us there. Both actions further destabilize the country.
What you’ve got to understand, Clark, is that the current government structure in Iraq will not last. It is far too flawed. It is not representative of the culture and desires of the regular Iraqis. The moment we leave (whenever that will happen) it will start reverting to something more akin to what Iraqis are used to. This is something war proponents never took into consideration when discussing the invasion. Iraqis just might not be culturally ready for “democracy.” Meaning, what they are most used to is the kind of government Saddam gave them. To suddenly have a completely different system will not work with the culture they are used to.
That’s alright. You’ll see in time that you are wrong. 🙂
Dan, there is a fundamental difference between the Jihadists and the Stalinists. This is what I think many Democrats just don’t get. As I said there is a naivete and ideology quite comparable to the stereotype of the neo-cons.
Rumsfeld’s strategy was for the troops to pull back but stay within Iraq at around 20,000 troops. The Democratic pull-out isn’t a true pullout either. I’ve not heard any mainstream Democratic argue for a total pull out. Indeed many go to quite lengths to assert that. Rather they basically embrace nearly to the letter Rumsfeld’s original Iraq plan. Troops stay in and train Iraqis and maintain a presence.
As for no Democrat being that stupid… Well…
And Clark,
There is a fundamental difference between a Jihadist and the rulers of both Syria and Iran. Jihadists have nothing to lose, and as such their actions are quite free of harsh consequences. State leaders on the other hand, unless they are ready to go all the way, have much to lose. Hitler was ready to go all the way, hence why he had to be fought against from the start. Iran is not ready to go all the way, and neither is Syria. In fact, both Iran and Syria have been quite helpful in the “war on terror.” Interestingly the United States government under Bush had no hesitation sending “suspects” to Syria knowing full well those suspects would be tortured there, but yet the United States government under Bush is afraid to talk to Syria about peace? Something is seriously wrong there. Iran gave Bush an overture of peace back in 2003. Why did Bush shun it? I personally have no doubt that Ahmadinejad won in the election of 2005 precisely because the moderates of Iran failed to succeed in showing Iranians that Americans want peace towards Iran. As such, victory was easy for the hardliner. And for Bush and conservatives it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If that was Rumsfeld’s plan, why didn’t he go through with it? Could it be just talk to placate Americans who were antsy about this war going longer than advertised? There is plenty of evidence to show that Rumsfeld et al had no real post-war plan, except to install Chalabi and leave. That’s certainly not the Democratic plan.
Clark, don’t you realize that by continuing on the path we are currently on, nothing is going to change? Except the body count? This is called a quagmire. There is a time when it comes to cutting your losses. The Israelis did it last summer, and hey, the sky hasn’t fallen over Israel. Why are Americans so afraid to pull out of an action when it clearly is a loss? What kind of silly pride blocks their path to reasoning and common sense?
Yes, but Dan, the war is ultimately against Al Queda. It’s only about nations like Iran and Syria to the degree they aid jihadists (and not necessarily Al Queda)
Iran and Syria have been mixed in the war on terror. Certainly on some fronts they’ve been helpful. And certainly Bush has bungled a lot here. But they also are problems. I agree, BTW, that Bush should have talked with Iran and N. Korea from the start. He royally flubbed things with his unnecessary hard stick.
I think Ahmadinejad won because of, to borrow Clinton’s phrase, “the economy stupid.” Ahmadinejad is losing popularity for the same reason. (In a way his focus on nukes is the attempt to use nationalism to distract from the economy) But the media’s focus on Ahmadinejad is silly since he’s not the power in Iran.
As for why Rumsfeld didn’t go through with his stupid plan it was because it was so quickly a failure. Rather than come up with an intelligent plan though he kept denying the failure and we had stop-gap measures. The first real “plan” for Iraq started two and a half months ago. As I said, it may well be too late. But I think we have to at least give it a try.
Rumsfeld’s plan wasn’t necessarily to install Chalabi, although I think he wished he could. But exactly where do you see the distinctions between the Democratic plan and Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld’s wasn’t just to leave either. The Democrats appear to think leaving with the current government in place will somehow cause the Shiites to feel pressure to negotiate with the Sunnis whereas everything I see indicates the opposite. I think significant factions within the Shiite community would love an American pull out and try to do a Yugoslavia on Iraq.
The idea that “continuing on the path we are currently on nothing is going to change” is simply false. If nothing else we’re holding off greater anarchy and chaos until the police and military can take a greater roll. Yeah it’s taking longer than we’d like and Bush screwed a lot up. But to argue that there’s nothing that we can do is simply wrong.
The problem with many Democrats is that they cast as big a blind eye to the costs of pulling out as neo-Cons did the costs of going in.
Clark,
I think you didn’t read what I wrote earlier about the regional powers being more involved with the factions within Iraq. That’s where the difference lies in Rumsfeld’s plan and the Democrats (who have the ISG report as their inspiration). Rumsfeld wanted nothing to do with the regional powers. But you MUST talk to them, all of them. They are all involved, and they are the key to a resolution. Bush has slowly moved in that direction (more because he has no choice than anything else), but alas he’s not a diplomatic sort of guy, so it won’t come to any good conclusion.
The withdrawal of American forces comes with heavy regional diplomacy. Even General Petraeus said there is no military solution, which befuddles me as he continues to ask for more troops…
We’re not casting a blind eye to the costs of pulling out, Clark. We’re not saying it will be pretty, and it will most likely be bloody. But you don’t seem to realize that WE are one of the key stumbling blocks to a resolution in Iraq. Our presence there is a key stumbling block.
Here’s what Harry Reid’s hometown newspaper has to say about this issue:
What? If Democrats truly want to end the war, they need do only one thing: Go home. Do not meet with the president, do not work for a compromise that will keep American boys dying in Baghdad.
Go home. Take no action. Pass no spending bill whatsoever. By July, existing funds would start to run out. Yes, the White House might cannibalize money from elsewhere for a time. But within months, whatever funds remained would have to be used to fuel up the planes and ships to bring the boys home.
Democrats contend, “The ball is now in the president’s court.” If so, it’s only because they’ve handed it back to him.
Now, mind you, the fact that the Democrats are racing to get some money into the pipeline so the troops don’t run out of ammo is a good thing. Their reasons are more cynical political calculus than patriotism — they know that declaring the war lost, pulling out and leaving the Iraqis to suffer a massive bloodbath does not play well in the polls.
Remember, challenger Ned Lamont might have won his primary among left-wing Connecticut Democratic zealots last summer, but his “surrender with honor” platform promptly went down to undignified defeat at the hands of pro-war (Democrat-turned-Independent) Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the autumn general elections.
So the strategy of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-Vichy, has been to go through the motions of “trying to cut off funding for the war” so they can tell the Neville Chamberlain branch of their own constituency, “We gave it our best shot” — all the while with no intention on God’s green earth of ever really seeing it happen.
This is good, because (as President Bush has rightly pointed out) announcing to the enemy the date fixed on which you intend to surrender is not exactly a recipe for victory, or even for bolstering your own troops’ morale while undermining the other guys.
What’s ludicrous is that the Democrats in Washington still insist they’re “trying to end the war” — by which they mean they will now agree to a set of nonbinding, face-saving, endlessly re-interpretable “security benchmarks” that supposedly have to be met if the president wants to keep his forces in Babylon.
And just to show they’re really focused on the war? The new spending bill, like the one just vetoed, will likely contain some $20 billion in pork for people still recovering from Hurricane Katrina, along with a provision outlawing the jobs of all Americans currently earning between $5.15 and $7.25 per hour, paired with $4.84 billion in tax cuts for small businesses.
It would all be somewhat amusing if we weren’t talking about a political party that, a year from now, will be asking Americans to trust it with the White House, and with it the formulation of clear, firm, decisive foreign policies that could equally well cost or spare thousands of American lives, along with the lives of hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving people all around the globe, not only on the battlefield, but wherever the unvanquished terrorist next opts to strike.
Find this article at:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7331101.html
Geoff,
Thanks for sharing that article. It goes to continue showing the hypocrisy on the right.
In fact, Bush himself said in 1999 that Clinton should set timetables for the withdrawal of troops from Kosovo, during the bombings and all. But oh yeah, that’s a Republican. He can publicly call for timetables for all the world to see.
Or how about all the Republicans who not only demanded a withdrawal and timetable from Somalia, but actually VOTED for the removal of troops from Somalia! Oh yeah, they’re Republican, they get a pass.
oh and let’s not forget the granddaddy of them all, Mr. Ronald Reagan, the god of the Republican party, the mythological Zeus, who, according to the Republican candidates last week, would have fought against terrorists with his bare hands. Yeah, that Reagan. The one who armed Iran and Iraq against each other. The one who, when Hezbollah rammed a truck full of explosives into a Marines barracks in Beirut, cut and run like a coward. Terrorists killed 241 Marines in their sleep. And Reagan sheepishly leaves Beirut.
And today’s Republicans worship this man as their hero, as the one to emulate in their “war on terror.”
Something is seriously wrong with the Republican party today.
Part of the problem in Beirut, which is one of Reagan’s big mistakes (few though they may be), was in going halfway. The Marines were there only symbolically. They weren’t armed and weren’t really prepared for combat. Once combat arrived they had to decide if they wanted a real presence. They didn’t. Weinberger decided a planned attack would hurt relations with other arabs in the region. Whether that was wise or not, certainly going in half heartedly was a mistake. (Ditto for a later similar situation in Mogadesu)
There were tough issues in the middle east then as now. Was the promoting of the Iraq/Iran war to keep two enemies at bay wise? In hindsight probably not. But then one of Reagan’s stupider moves was his attempted negotiation with the Iranians as well.
Bush in 1999 was much different from the Bush of 2002 for sure. (I liked the Bush of 1999 better, I must say) I’m not sure that Kosovo and Iraq are quite comparable though. What was the national interest in Kosovo or Somalia? Contrast this with Iraq.
I will say this. I can’t fathom Reagan going in on the cheap into Iraq the way Bush did.
Dan,
You can cherry-pick *any* president to death — even the likes of Lincoln (who was a a Republican, by the way).
But Clark, we’re not talking about national interest. No Republican that berates Democrats for calling for benchmarks and timetables is talking about the national interest. They are using this to take potshots at Democrats, and it is very hypocritical because they themselves called for withdrawals and timetables when Democratic presidents went to war.
It is a matter of semantics, Clark. Their language is intentionally inflammatory, instead of actually debating the pros and cons of leaving or staying. They would rather attempt to portray Democrats as terrorist-lovers. Fine, this Democrat fights back. I’ve come to learn that Republicans who use inflammatory comments don’t like a taste of their own medicine. Well, they ought to learn not to use such language.
I appreciate debating you Clark, because you do focus on the good and the bad, rather than on inflammatory words.
Now you say:
But he did just that in Beirut. You just mentioned it yourself. You said:
How can you then say that you cannot fathom Reagan going in on the cheap when he did exactly that, in the Middle East, no less?
Dan, I strongly disagree. While I’m sure there may be some Republicans doing this purely out of taking political potshots, just as I’m sure there are Democrats doing the opposite, I think most are speaking out of principle. They earnestly feel that the national interest of the US needs a stable Iraq. They feel quite angry at Democrats for (to them) not caring about such interests. The fact that you don’t see such interests and see it as pure politics simply establishes the concern many Republican have of the Democrat position. (This includes Republicans quite angry at Bush)
As to Beirut it wasn’t going to war. That’s the point. He put a few troops in there symbolically with no ability to really engage in a firefight. Afterwards he was going to send troops but then, primarily because of the views of other Arab states, decided not to. But Reagan was all about going in with full force. The symbolic station really wasn’t about going in, as such.
Most Democrats are speaking on principle too, Clark. We really believe that continually staying in Iraq only further destabilizes the country, that our real enemy is not in Iraq, but in Pakistan, and with most of our focus on Iraq, we are letting our real enemy have a comfortable place where he can rebuild his strength. And the facts are on our side, I’m afraid. Just note today the Sunni political leader demanding a significant change to the Iraqi constitution or he will pull out all his political leaders out of the governing body, a highly significant blow to “democracy” in Iraq. Violence continues. The surge has not slowed violence down.
Democrats sincerely believe that it is in our national best interest to leave Iraq (and of course many of us thought it was foolish to go in the first place).
Well yes, I understand that. That’s ultimately the point. It is a debate over who is right.
After over four years, can you honestly say Republicans were right?