Congress, the President, and the polls: a game of withdrawal chess
Headline in the Washington Post: “Bush would veto new Iraq bill.”
Ya think? Surely this isn’t a surprise (it’s a sort of “dog bites man” story) although of course the Post and the rest of the MSM are required to treat it as newsworthy.
The new bill would fund the war only through September, and even that would be contingent on a report this summer to Congress on whether the Iraqi government has met certain security benchmarks. Then Congress would vote again as to whether to actually release the funds or not.
Congress continues to play political games here. I guess at this point that’s pretty much its raison de etre. But still, the sponsors of this bill had to know that it would be vetoed. So, why continue this approach?
The struggle between Bush and Congress has always been couched at least partly as the Democrats trying to chip away at Bush’s popular support. But surely they know that, at this point, Bush is beyond such considerations. The word “Bush” is probably just a cover for the word “Republicans”—after all, it’s other Republicans, who must go on record as either voting or not voting for this bill, who need to run again in 2008.
So the Democrats don’t really need for the bill to actually be signed into law. It will function as a litmus test for members of Congress, and the Democrats are betting that it’s a winner for their side in the elective sense.
If one reads the news summaries of the latest polls, one could easily think the Democrats are right. It seems like a no-brainer: 6 out of 10 Americans want to see a timetable for withdrawal no matter what. What could be clearer? The Democrats would appear to have the majority strongly with them.
But go to the Gallup site and read the actual results. Hmmmm. It turns out that the all-important question was worded thusly:
If you had to choose, which do you think is better for the US—to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq until the situation there gets better, even if that takes many years, [or] to set a timetable for removing troops from Iraq and to stick to that timetable regardless of what is going on in Iraq at the time?
Why didn’t the pollsters ask whether people favored immediate withdrawal, withdrawal in a certain number of months, or whether they favored the bill as written (the poll was asked May 4-6, so the information in it could have been quite current)? Well, I don’t read the minds of pollsters, and I guess they were looking at exactly what they wanted to be looking at, which was the support for a timetable versus no timetable at all.
But the distinction isn’t a very helpful one when that’s not the choice being faced at the moment. It’s the addition of that telling phrase “even if that takes many years” that even I, a non-pollster, can tell easily could be skewing the results. And it doesn’t take training as a therapist to see that, either. I’m sure the pollsters knew it themselves.
Other parts of this and other recent polls ought to give the Democrats pause as well, although I doubt they will. A poll in late April asked certain questions that the Gallup folks apparently decided not to include this time, but the findings then were that only 30% of Americans would like to see troops beginning to return home within six months, with an additional 27% wanting to see withdrawal start sometime next year or beyond, and 39% against any such deadlines.
Hmmm, once again.
In the most recent poll, Americans believed 50% to 46% that a withdrawal would embolden Iran and North Korea to see it as evidence of US weakness, and to challenge us with threats. Hmmm again.
And then there’s the fact that majorities see a likelihood of negative consequences for a pullout: as increased threat of civil war in Iraq, al Qaeda setting up shop there, and increased threats of terrorist attacks in this country.
Again, I would exercise caution: polls are polls, and often not all that worthwhile. But if one is relying on them in order to gauge public opinion for a coming election—and I have little doubt that that’s exactly what the Democrats are doing—one should at least take a good, hard, and careful look.
If someone were to accuse you of supporting the war for cynical political considerations – something like whipping up fear in order to garner votes or that sort of thing – how would you respond? You’d probably object, right, and argue that your support was genuine and that you believed good would come from continuing the war? Right?
So why is it that you – and so many other people here – seem to have such a hard time imagining that people oppose the war do so out of a genuine belief that ending the war will have positive effects, and not out of cynical political calculations and playing to polls?
Shouldn’t you, of all people, considering your profession, understand why it is so easy to demonize people who disagree with you and why it should be avoided?
The war is over. It was over a long time ago. President Bush said “Mission Accomplished” in that speech aboard the aircraft carrier back in 2004 — that’s three years ago. We won. In fact we won three years ago, and our own president says that we have accomplished our mission three years ago.
Why are we still in Iraq then?
“ending the war will have positive effects”
List them, please, in order of importance.
Stumnley, I’m going to break my rule (just once!) and not ignore someone who legitimately believes that people who disagree politically are mentally deranged.
The argument has been made (I don’t necessarily agree with it, though I understand its merits) that setting a timetable for withdrawal, for example, would generate tremendous incentive for the ruling Shi’a parties of Iraq to make political compromises with the Sunni elite that could end the Sunni-nationalist insurgency and allow the al-Qa’ida component to be isolated and defeated. Without such an incentive, and with the US army there to prop it up, the Iraqi government has no incentive to pursue anything but a maximalist agenda that alienates potential Sunni partners.
Now, is it impossible to imagine that someone might both a) believe that the US should withdraw from Iraq and b) not hate freedom and America? Of course not. Just because someone disagrees with you, even about something as important as Iraq, does not make them a monster, a hater of freedom or America, a terrorist-lover, or anything like that.
It’s remarkable to me that, in America, today, there are people who treat political disagreement as a litmus test for determining whether someone is good or evil. But then again, you are the BDS-spouting cult-of-personality goon that you are, so ideological rigidity should probably be expected from you. But it still amazes me that you are so bereft of imagination that you can’t imagine a single reason – or even the very existence of a reason, regardless of its content – that someone might disagree with you politically that does not require the other person to be evil.
Anon, I do not consider you evil, or even a “goon,” just willfully ignorant of history and context.
And while I can appreciate that your theory that American withdrawal would incentivize the “ruling Shi’a parties of Iraq to make political compromises with the Sunni elite,” I believe that those compromises are already being made, and that the tribes in Anbar are already sick of the al Qaeda “insurgency” and are aligning with the government to stop it. Furthermore, I believe that al Qaeda is not interested in an Iraqi government at all, and is doing everything in its power (helped by Saudi and Iranian financing and supply) to see that the government fails, the better to erect a “safe haven” for al Qaeda in Iraq. The Wahhabists in KSA and the Iranian mullahs (strange bedfellows, yes, but united in their hatred of the West) are for the moment cooperating in this endeavor.
I fail to see how America’s withdrawal from Iraq will be beneficial in the least, as it’s sure to bring the downfall of the nascent Iraqi democracy and allow the aforementioned destructive elements to fill the power vacuum.
And if you can’t see the larger, more destructive global results of withdrawal on America’s standing in the world, the destructive effects that it would have on alliances in the region (think Turkey and Pakistan, for example), then I think you’re not really appreciative of what’s at stake.
One reason, btw, is a really short list.
Not evil, just naive. Hey, and thanks for the kind words.
abuaardvark.typepad.com.I’m not going to get into a discussion of the merits of that theory, because a) it’s not my theory, b) it wasn’t the point of the discussion, and c) neither of us know remotely enough about the intentions of Anbar’s Sunni leaders to judge whether they are or are not sick of the insurgency. Marc Lynch has written extensively about this lately; you can read his work here: http://www.abuaardvark.typepad.com.
So maybe you don’t consider people who advocate for withdrawal, just stupid. So I have to wonder: why does Neoneocon believe that the people in Congress who support withdrawal do so not out of an earnest but misguided intent to achieve the same goal she wants to achieve, but rather out of cynical political calculations?
Also, stumbley – you’re already established yourself as someone who believes that any criticism of the president, no matter how mild, is evidence of mental illness on the part of the critic, so you’ll have to excuse me for being suspicious.
And let’s not forget the not inconsiderable sum of $100+ billion a year the Iraq experiment is costing America.
There are many things that money could go to that are guaranteed to do good.
It’s amazing how often the poll questions show much more about the pollsters’ own biases than they do about the respondent’s beliefs. I was thinking of this today as I drove by a sign encouraging Marin County women to participate in a breast cancer study. I received the questionnaire in the mail some time ago. As I dutifully filled it out, I noticed something interesting. There were myriad questions about junk foods, bacon, sugars, coffee, chocolate, cell phones, tv watcher, electrical outlets, power lines, etc., and not a single question about whether the responding women had ever had children, how old she was when she had children, whether she breast fed, if she’d ever had an abortion, or her birth control pill use — all of which I would think would be extremely important information to someone seriously interested in finding out about breast cancer. After slogging through the questionnaire, I ended up tossing it in the trash, having no interest in contributing to a study that was manifestly focused on a whole foods agenda, rather than answering questions about cancer.
“There are many things that money could go to that are guaranteed to do good.”
Oh, I agree, alphie. That, and the billions we’ve spent in “Palestine” as well.
Anon, I’m critical of this President all the time. The border policy is insane, his coddling of corporations is troubling, and I’m no social conservative…that being said, I’m in favor of the Iraq policy, which is what we’ve been discussing here. I don’t think those who oppose the war for valid reasons are “stupid”; yours apparently are valid to you, and I respectfully disagree, okay? As to the Democrat congress opposing the war for “cynical political reasons,” one has only to look at their pronouncements before the invasion to see how crassly political their withdrawal stance is now. Dennis Kucinich and a few others who opposed the war from the outset are the only honest opposition members. The rest are weathervanes, swayed by political winds.
Ah, polls. Tell me the answers you want and I will produce poll questions, propound them to sample populations chosen by me, in manners and at times of my choosing, and I will get you the answers you want.
Polls are beyond meaningless, they are, in fact, dezinformatsiya.
As to the Democrat congress opposing the war for “cynical political reasons,” one has only to look at their pronouncements before the invasion to see how crassly political their withdrawal stance is now. Dennis Kucinich and a few others who opposed the war from the outset are the only honest opposition members. The rest are weathervanes, swayed by political winds.
Totally agree.
Both Republicans and Democrats are corrupt and self-serving. Americans deserve better than this pair of Twedledum and Tweedledee.
I heard that there are some efforts underway to get Kucinic to run as a third-party candidate. That would be a good thing.
Absent a number of statistically insignificant outliers, no American wants this war to go on. But there’s no evidence to support the notion that “world opinion” would embrace the US if we were to withdraw from engagement with Al Qaeda in Iraq, and there’s no reason to believe that surrender – which is precisely what it would be – would cause our sworn enemies to disengage either.
I am an advocate of Occam’s Razor. And it applies here. In spades.
The West is not compatible with radical Islam.
Radical Islam seeks to dominate within its expanding sphere of influence.
Radical Islam seeks a restoration of the Caliphate from Western Europe to Eastern Asia.
Radical Islam resides in a separate moral universe from our own.
An inevitable war, which the West did not initiate, is underway, and is in its early stages having begun, effectively, in 1979.
The war will end when one side is defeated.
The West cannot afford to lose.
And that is it. Everything else doesn’t add up to anything meaningful.
Some people used to say the same thing about Communism, Rick.
Thank goodness they never got control of our nuclear weapons.
“Radical Islam”, I think, is merely the form or channel in which various frustrations in the Islamic word are expressing themselves. Why this particular channel? Probably because “radical islam” is the only dissenting institution which is available in many of these countries, from Morocco to Saudi Arabia, where all other institutional avenues of dissent were shut/choked to death a long time ago by the ruling dictatorships (which we, i.e. the West support).
We in the West need to start by being honest. If we really are for openness and tolerance and democracy, as we claim to be, then we cannot keep supporting the human-rights-abusing, undemocratic, oppressive regimes in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and such other places. (And let’s not forget that we, the West, supported Saddam too as long as it was convenient for us.)
We need to stop supporting the thugs who rule these countries. Because if we keep supporting the ruling thugs in these countries, who throttle all forms of legitimate dissent, then we will keep seeing the youth of these countries being seduced by the camp of the Islamist thugs — the latter being the only available dissenting voice in these countries.
We need to start asking questions such as why the regime of an undemocratic thug like Hosni Mubarak of Egypt is the second highest (right after Israel) recipient of US foreign aid, while he merrily keeps putting Egyptian democracy activists in prison.
Because if we keep on supporting the ruling thugs, the rest of the world, especially the Arab world, will keep seeing our highfalutin rhetoric about democracy to be utterly hypocritical. (And they won’t be very wrong to do so, because our actions have been hypocritical — we preach democracy but keep supporting the thugs when it suits us, especially as long as the thugs guarantee that the oil will keep flowing.
charlemagne:
Even if we stopped the additional monetary support given to the regimes you cite, they would continue as long as the world needed oil. The US currently gets most of its oil from Mexico, Venezuela, Canada, and yes, Saudi Arabia. If we were magically able to eliminate KSA from the equation tomorrow, they would still have enough money from the rest of the world to continue in much the same vein as they do today.
I agree that our support to Egypt is misplaced; if I had my choice, I’d stop foreign aid altogether, except for those countries who were true allies.
And, admit it…if we actually were to attempt to destabilize the existing governments through anything but harsh language, who do you suppose would support us? France? Russia? Germany? So how do you propose to attain the lofty goal of eliminating the “thugs” who currently foment discord in the ME?
I postulate that the true goal of the Iraqi adventure was to show the world–and especially the Middle East–that democracy is possible there; that a functioning Arab democracy would be an incentive to the populace of other countries in the region to attempt to establish their own; and as a warning to the “thugs” that you decry that perhaps their days are numbered.
But since it appears that neither “the West” nor even most of America really cares about such a thing, we’re going to be saddled with conflict with “radical Islam” for a long, long time.
The US doesn’t have to cut funding to countries like Egypt in order to influence their behavior. In fact, this would likely be highly counterproductive – it would remove the leverage we currently have over these regimes and leave them open to destabilization. The idea is to use our existing relationships to influence or pressure these countries into making reforms, not to use threats of force or cutting all ties to threaten them to do what we want.
The Mubarak regime, for example, has taken advantage of the US’ desire for “moderate” Sunni regimes as counterbalance to Iran in order to consolidate power at home. Rice has abandoned all talk about reform when she talks about or to Egypt, and the regime noticed this, using it as tacit acceptance of recent constitutional amendments designed to limit democracy in that country further. The people of Egypt and the region also noticed this – that the US is totally willing to abandon even the language of democracy promotion and reform when it suits our strategic interests. This has serious implications for our image as the key pro-status quo actor and popular support for anti-status quo actors.
You remind me of the undergrads I have taught. When asked, what should the US do in this or that situation? the answer is always some maximalist, magical plan. The US has more options and more resources than that – be more creative.
What’s your “minimalist” plan, other than…”harsh language” or “pushing for reform”? And again, who in the West is going to support any change from the status quo? The corrupt ruling elites in the West are just as corrupt as the ruling elites in the ME. With the changes in France and Germany, we might be seeing a little headway, but Putin? And will TOTAL/Fina/Elf just walk away from their investments or interests?
And, gee, it’s good to be 18 again.
‘I postulate that the true goal of the Iraqi adventure was to show the world–and especially the Middle East–that democracy is possible there; that a functioning Arab democracy would be an incentive to the populace of other countries in the region to attempt to establish their own; and as a warning to the “thugs” that you decry that perhaps their days are numbered.’
Even if this were true (which I suspect it is), it reveals a hopelessly misguided mindset and understanding of the region. The people of the Arab world were not ignorant of democracy and did not need the US to demonstrate its possibility; what they needed was for the US to use its leverage over key strategic allies, like Egypt which received billions in aid or Saudi Arabia which has had its security guaranteed by the US since Britain departed the Gulf decades ago, to make reforms necessary to give those people the democracy they already wanted. Support for democracy in the Arab world is higher than it is anywhere else.
The problem with the Iraq war as a tool for democracy promotion is that, regardless of the intentions of the war’s architects, it was most likely never going to achieve that goal. Removing the country’s government without having any real interim authority in place was an invitation to any group willing to use force to achieve power – hence we have an Iraq split between Sunni insurgents and Shi’a ex-insurgents who now run the government. There’s no room for the common man or woman in Iraq to pursue democracy when armed groups not particularly interested in democracy are around. But this is, again, a perfect example of maximalist, magical thinking – instead of pressuring for reform, the US decided to make an explosive statement designed to, somehow never quite explained, lead other Muslim peoples to overthrow their governments because…that happens all the time and we have lots of evidence that would have led us to believe this would happen?
Undergrads have an excuse: they’re young, impatient, and lack experience. Our country’s leaders don’t have the excuse of being undergrads; they should have known better than to gamble with the lives of Iraqis and Americans.
Using relations and leverage to pressure a regime into changing behavior is not a) minimalist or b) using “harsh language.” Most Americans, yourself included, seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what diplomacy actually is. That, or a willful desire to only see it through their own ideological framework.
I simply can’t keep doing this. I leave it to someone with far more patience than I to try.
Because…diplomacy has worked so well in the past.
Really, anon, what “leverage” other than refusing billions in aid? We did that once with Egypt and pushed it into the Soviet sphere. What “leverage” with the Saudis? Stop buying oil? China will lap up what we don’t buy in a heartbeat. Remove the bases? A few Saudi businessmen lose some military-related business. So what?
As long as the world’s appetite for petroleum remains unslaked, the oil barons of the ME have us all over a barrel (literally).
Do I want to see more US efforts at energy independence? Yes. Would I like to see more green nuclear energy? Yes. Would I like to see us develop oil shale and drill in ANWR to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Yes.
Who in the Democrat congress will support any of this? Who in “the West” will step up to the plate and use the velvet glove to get the ME to straighten out?
On the other hand, a show of force in Iraq got Khaddafi to give up his nukes. Egypt is a lot more receptive to us than they have been in years. The Sauds are quietly helping to root out terrorists in their own country and elsewhere.
You may be tired of all this Anon, but not nearly as tired as I am of the “visualize world peace” attitude of people like you who ignore the past 70 years and believe that thugs respond to “pressure” that consists of economic or other sanctions. The only people hurt by sanctions and refusal of aid are the very people whom you suggest are the victims of their repressive governments. Saddam was building palaces while sanctions were in place.
Really, anon, what “leverage” other than refusing billions in aid? We did that once with Egypt and pushed it into the Soviet sphere.
There is no longer any Soviet sphere now, and so if we push the Egyptian regime (or other thuggish regimes), there is no danger of their being “pushed” into the Soviet sphere.
So, what is stopping us from pushing them?
Stumbley, ‘Oil for food’, wasn’t it?
Charl, how about the “Islamic” sphere? Huh, Charl, huh? Ever hear of an “Islamic Republuic”? Kinda like a “People’s Republic”?
‘republuic’? Must be “tired”.
On the other hand, a show of force in Iraq got Khaddafi to give up his nukes. Egypt is a lot more receptive to us than they have been in years. The Sauds are quietly helping to root out terrorists in their own country and elsewhere.
You are failing to see the real problem here. Yes, we may be using leverage to make these regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia) more “receptive to us”, as you say. But the point is, we’re not doing anything to make these regimes more receptive to their people. The people in these countries see this. They hear us talk, in our lofty rhetoric, about democracy, and then they see that we actually turn a blind eye to the lack of democracy of these regimes as long as the regimes are “receptive to us”. This completely undermines the faith of people in these countries in the basic fairness or sincerity of the USA. Ergo, they then become easy prey to the anti-American rhetoric of the Islamist radicals.
What “leverage” with the Saudis? Stop buying oil? China will lap up what we don’t buy in a heartbeat. Remove the bases? A few Saudi businessmen lose some military-related business. So what?
Again, you’re missing the point. We don’t necessarily need leverage over the thuggish rulers. What we need is leverage over people’s hearts and minds. When the people in these countries see the USA taking a stand against the injustice of the thuggish rulers, they will look up to the USA and admire us — in the same way that the people of Eastern Europe used to admire us for taking a stand against their thuggish rulers (although there too we betrayed the people — the Hungarians for example, by not coming to the Hungarians’ aid when the Hungarians revolted against the Soviet-led puppet regime in Hungary in the 1950s; but by and large we took a stand againt the thugs — against Poland’s suppression of Solidarity and Walesa, for example). The problem now is that the thuggish rulers are now our best friends, and it is showing us to be hypocritical and thus acting as a poster for recruitment of the youth by the Islamist radicals.
What “leverage” with the Saudis? Stop buying oil? China will lap up what we don’t buy in a heartbeat. Remove the bases? A few Saudi businessmen lose some military-related business. So what?
As long as the world’s appetite for petroleum remains unslaked, the oil barons of the ME have us all over a barrel (literally).
You mean, regime change is not possible in oil-rich countries except via external invasion?
You only have to look at Venezuela to see that this is not true. Venezuela is an oil-rich country and until the late 1980s Venezuela’s oligarchy controlled the country almost totally. Yet, in spite of the oil rents, in the face of popular uprisings which started in the early 90s (such as the Caracazo) the Venezuelan elite were forced to cede power eventually.
Charl, how about the “Islamic” sphere? Huh, Charl, huh? Ever hear of an “Islamic Republuic”? Kinda like a “People’s Republic”?
What “Islamic sphere”? There is only Iran. Surely you jest if you compare the military power and influence of the Soviet bloc with the combined power and influence of Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas. There is no comparison.
If I had to listen to someone about what “radical Islam” is all about I’d prefer to listen to someone who had a gut and bone understanding of what it means to be a True Believer.
Curious thing, that. The closest we’ve got in this country view radical Islam from a religious rather than sociological perspective and are usually quite clear in seeing it as a significant threat *and* one that can be opposed militarily without undue feeding of that beast.
“Surely I jest”? When, exactly, did the “powerful and influential” Soviet bloc ever successfully attack America on her own soil? When, exactly, did the “powerful and influential” Soviet bloc have satellite TV stations and internet websites? When, exactly, did the “powerful and influential” Soviet bloc claim to be “god’s” instrument?
Yeah, charlemagne, Venezuela is a prime example of democracy in action. No oligarchy there.
Oh wait, the oil industry was just nationalized…for comrade Hugo…
No, stumbley, for the ‘people’.
Yeah, charlemagne, Venezuela is a prime example of democracy in action. No oligarchy there.
Oh wait, the oil industry was just nationalized…for comrade Hugo…
Well, Hugo Chavez campaigned on a platform of nationalizing the oil industry and he was elected with a large mandate (in elections that were certified as free and fair by international observers, including from the Organization of American States and the Carter Center).
So, it seems that nationalization was democratically decided on, and preferred by the Venezuelan people.
Now, you might think that nationalization is a bad policy decision and it’s even possible that you’re right. But that doesn’t negate the fact that the majority of Venezuelans wanted nationalization, which is why they voted for someone who promised nationalization, and is now carrying out that promise.
So, how can this be called undemocratic? Just because you disagree with some policy doesn’t necessarily mean that it is undemocratic policy.
Until the 1990s the oligarchy pretty much controlled Venezuelan politics. Now it doesn’t. You may not like Chavez, but the majority of Venezuelans seem to like him and they vote for him. Since Venezuelans vote in Venezuela, it’s their choice, even though it may not have been your choice.
So, yes, a regime change did happen in Venezuela in the 1990s. The oligarchy was dislodged, in spite of having the oil rent on their side and in their pockets. No external invasion was necessary — the change happened due to internal pressure because the people were fed up. Chavez came to power via elections and has been winning elections. Also won the referendum. (All these were internationally monitored.) Of course the former elites aren’t happy, but it’s too bad — the majority of Venezuelans seem to prefer Chavez to the good ole’ boys of the oligarchy days.
Q.E.D. Regime change can happen due to internal pressure when people crave democracy.
Well, if Jimmy Carter’s on board, then who am I to complain?
Yes, I guess the Venezuelans got the government they deserve.
Say, wasn’t Jimmy the one who used diplomacy and leverage to get the North Koreans to stop their nuclear program?
Or was it William Jefferson Clinton?
Yeah, those guys. We’re sure better off due to their efforts, aren’t we?
Wasn’t Jimmy the guy who paid for peace in the Middle East at Camp David? Or, was it Bubba who paid for peace in the Middle East at Dayton? More “diplomacy and leverage”?
And we all know the only uncertified elections in the world happen in America.
As congress plays political games that automatically provides support for the terrorists American Soldiers and Iraqi civilians die. Is there enough blood to be spilled in the world to satisfy the democrats? Evidently not, 3 to 5 million slaughtered on behalf of the democrats in Southeast Asia, 50 million + – babies murdered on orders of the democrats, and now they’re after the blood of millions of Iraqi’s. They are worse than Hitler and Saddam rolled into one.
Other parts of this and other recent polls ought to give the Democrats pause as well, although I doubt they will.
But Neo, don’t you realize that the Demos aren’t listening to the poll results? They manipulated and crafted the polls. The poll results didn’t cause the Demo actions. The Demos caused the poll results.
Again, I would exercise caution: polls are polls, and often not all that worthwhile.
But they are worthwhile, because in all democracies, the “will of the people” becomes a convenient weapon to manipulate the will of others to your own gain. And it is manipulated by polls more or less. The ballot.
Hugo Chavez didn’t get elected cause he ran on Bush’s platform and ethics model. But on the Democrats.
I don’t waste my time with reading y anon’s posts. So stumbley can knock himself out.
Here’s a video of Al Anbar
Combine it with Grim’s posts and Karzai the Magnificent, and you got something a lot stronger than what Anon can y outpu.
Charlemagne,
To answer your first question of why we’re still in Iraq, President Bush stated in the same “mission accomplished” speech of May 1, 2003 that “We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine.” and “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
Two months later, former President Clinton concurred with that mission. CLINTON: And what I think — again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what’s the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? . . . We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.
In mil-speak, President Bush was not announcing the end of the war in Iraq per se, but rather the end of “major combat operations”, which just shows the limits of the military’s pre-9/11 technocratic vocabulary based on concepts of traditional (WW2 -> Cold War) state-vs-state warfare that relegated other military operations to secondary “other than war” status. Our failure to prioritize those military operations other than war, to the degree that even the technocratic language restricted the capability, has presented gaping opportunities for the enemy to exploit. Your question highlights the same inability to square the present reality with the traditional conceptual framework of “war” and military operations “other than war”. You’re not alone. Many military authorities are having a hard time adjusting to the fact that enemy ops in Iraq have been more intensive post major combat in a situation, in the technocratic language, once defined as “low intensity” conflict. The cognitive upheaval, and the deep institutional resistance in the military to reform according to the reality in Iraq, has been a major reason that we have had such a hard time.
The weakness is not just with our military and allies. Iraq has been a major failure of the NGO, humanitarian and international communities, all of which entered Iraq with best intentions after the “major combat” phase. Their subsequent failure to deal with the cognitive upheaval, in the form of bombs, beheadings, etc, thrust upon them by the enemy in Iraq led to their failure on the ground. Of course, rather than honor their commitment to Iraq and the Iraqi people, most of them left Iraq altogether when challenged by the enemy. Because they dropped out, it’s not clear that they have learned anything. Our persistence in staying with Iraq hopefully, eventually, will result in our education and necessary reforms on our part so that we can succeed in Iraq and carry over that skillset and conceptual framework as a world leader.
The enemy learns and evolves. We need to do so as well in order to compete and win. Iraq is an opportunity both for us and the enemy to do so.
Interesting thread – apart from the last, irrelvant post.
The real question is what has neo-neocon learned?
Or can she?
Like a true ideologue I’m sure she’s more concerned about figuring out how to keep people like me off her board rather than engaging people like Charg and Mouse….
Hi Neo- girl!
“Say, wasn’t Jimmy the one who used diplomacy and leverage to get the North Koreans to stop their nuclear program?
Or was it William Jefferson Clinton?
Yeah, those guys. We’re sure better off due to their efforts, aren’t we?”
First, you fundamentally do not understand what diplomacy is. Diplomacy is not talking, and it is not using “harsh language,” and it is not repeating your demands, over and over again, in the hopes that your sheer force of will can alter another country’s behavior. Diplomacy should be understood in the same way that a purchase or sale is understood. You are trying, in essence, to purchase a change in behavior from another country. When you come to the table, you have to be able to present both the demands you are making and what you are willing to pay.
Second, yes – the diplomatic efforts of Bill Clinton’s government did, in fact, achieve something. NK abandoned enrichment efforts in exchange for substantial concessions. If you don’t want NK to build nukes and you can’t attack it for fear of losing Seoul to an artillery barrage, you have to be willing to pay. Clinton realized this and gave us an agreement that would have worked, had not the Republican-controlled Congress decided that making concessions to a dictatorship was so distasteful, it was better that dictatorship had nuclear weapons. Congress refused to fund the concessions, the NKs balked and restarted a program they had ended because of Clinton’s diplomacy. When Bush came into office, he finally killed off the deal, spent six years dicking around, and then signed a deal that looks almost exactly like the one Clinton signed. Looks like he, too, realized finally that diplomacy means you have to offer the other side something in addition to making demands. The only problem is, it’s six years later and NK has nukes. We have the same deal but the situation is much, much worse. Wouldn’t it have been better to have had the deal six years ago and no NK nukes?
But Bush and his supporters seem wedded to the idea that you don’t need to talk to people to get them to do what you want, and that you don’t need to dirty your hands working with a repellent dictator because if you just wish hard enough, magic will make the bad nukes go away.
Well, this does it for me, neo. After reading the responses by the chicken-brained above, in future I will read your columns but never again the comments.
Anon and others always seem to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths when needed. On the one hand, it’s our fault the world hates us when we “support” bad guys, but then say we must “deal” with them if they get “bad enough” to threaten something. In other words “peace at any price”.
Charl will decry such “harsh language” from Bush as “threatening”, but says we can ingratiate ourselves to the Egyptian people if we “denounce” Mubarak, who, of course, will rationally conclude he’s “not wanted” and relinquish authority.
I guess I just don’t get why it is that so many people are eager to see us lose and lose quickly. By pretty much any definition, quitting a contested field of battle is losing. Withdrawal from Iraq is losing the war in Iraq.
What is it, exactly, about the prospect of national disgrace and defeat that has some folks so excited?
BRD
Steve, the real question is, have you learned?
Or can you?
Tom yes, I think it’s better to read Neo’s columns, and mostly skip the comments. Like true ideologues, they’re more concerned with presenting Leftist agitprop and trying to punish Neo for what they see as her apostasy from the true faith than they are in actually debating.
Hiya, Chicken-brains!
I wonder if it’s natural to utterly misread someone, or if the Internet in particular makes it so easy to demonize someone who disagrees with you over politics.
Either way, I’m off to points foreign again, so I’ll have to leave and say: enjoy congratulating each other on ideological purity! Down with crimethink!
Well, Anon, by the evidence of your own postings, I’d say the internet in particular makes it easy to demonize someone who disagrees with you over politics.
Although I’ve noticed it really doesn’t matter what forum the left happens to be in at the time, the ideology seems “at ease” to demonize at any time, any person, any ideology that doesn’t conform to theirs(yours).
No change to democracy in Arab world would ever lead to liberal democracy, only to Iranian or Hamas-type “people republic” run by terrorists and madmen. Pressure from US can persuade autocratic rulers to abandon nukes or arrogant anti-American policy, but no incentive can persuade them to commit suicide, political and physical, and any concession to democracy for them is concession to islamists, that is, a suicide. So we should be happy to have in ME not very anti-Western secular governments, however tyrannical they can be. They are natural allies against much more dangerous enemies: islamists. As Churchill famously said justifying his alliance with Stalin, “If devil invaded Germany, I would be able to find a pair of pleasant words for the devil”. This is the example to follow.