Democrats: see no evil, see no good
Michael Goodwin points out that, in their latest debates, the Democratic candidates seem to be “sleepwalking through history” about the war on terror:
What was once a bipartisan concern about the new phenomenon of lethal nonstate actors such as Al Qaeda has been reduced to denunciations of waterboarding and attacks on the Patriot Act.
The article is illustrated with a cartoon of Hillary, Edwards, and Obama as the three willfully evil-denying monkeys:
This seems accurate as far as it goes. But it strikes me that the Democratic candidates—and many of the Democrats in Congress—paradoxically see almost nothing but evil in today’s Iraq. As Goodwin points out:
The one mention of the troop “surge” came from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He declared it “is not working,” no matter what the facts say, and Obama made a similar point without using the word.
And, of course, there’s the Congressional Democratic leaders’ continuing determination to defund the war unless they’re able to dictate a withdrawal timetable. And this despite the fact that even newspapers such as the NY Times are now regularly publishing tentatively optimistic articles such as this one, entitled “Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves” (yes, I know it’s full of “well, but’s” and “on the other hand’s”—but still, it manages to grudgingly spotlight recent improvements).
That cartoon of the three candidates could serve just as well if the sight they were denying was the good done in Iraq, rather than the evil of the terrorist threat. There are two common threads here: the first is denial itself, and the second is refusal to give President Bush and the Republicans any credit whatsoever for their successes.
Christopher Hitchens also writes about the Democrats and Iraq, noting:
What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism [about recent positive developments in Iraq]…but the dank and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased.
It does sometimes appear to be that way. Politicians’ self-centered concerns with their own electability would tend to make it painfully difficult for them to credit the opposition with policy successes, even those good for the nation as a whole.
But I’m afraid there’s more to it than that for those on the hard Left. Not all liberals, and certainly not all Democrats, qualify as being on the Left, of course. But the base to which the Party increasingly genuflects appears increasingly Leftist in sympathies and composition.
Here’s the type of thing many Leftists say—and believe. I bring you exhibit A, journalist John Pilger, speaking about Iraq in an interview on Dec 31, 2003 with the generally Left-leaning news organization Democracy Now:
I think the resistance in Iraq is incredibly important for all of us. I think that we depend on the resistance to win so that other countries might not be attacked, so that our world in a sense becomes more secure. Now, I don’t like resistances that produce the kind of terrible civilian atrocities that this one has, but that is true of all of the resistances. This one is a resistance against a rapacious power, that if it is not stopped in Iraq will go on as we now know to North Korea where Mr. Cheney and others are just chomping at the bit to have a crack at that country. So, what the outcome of this resistance is terribly important for the rest of the world, I think if the United States’ military machine and the Bush administration can suffer—well, the let’s say, quote, defeat, unquote, because it was never a complete defeat in Vietnam—but if they suffer something like that in Iraq.
The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide. And the Left doesn’t really care what the nature of that so-called “resistance” is, even if it’s a viciously totalitarian fundamentalist Islamic group such as al Qaeda, who would just as soon behead Pilger himself and all his cronies if they weren’t so very useful to them. As long as the “resistance” in Iraq is against the US, Bush, and Cheney, that’s enough to make Pilger and company embrace murderous thugs who would stomp on all human rights—and certainly on anything we know as liberalism, classical and/or modern-day—if they had their way.
Yes, I know that the Democratic candidates don’t share Pilger’s extreme anti-American stance. But unfortunately their party has too many people who do. And, unfortunately, I could rewrite Pilger’s statement from the Democratic candidates’ point of view and it might go something like this:
I think that we depend on the resistance to win so that we can be elected. Now, we don’t like resistances that produce the kind of terrible civilian atrocities that this one has, but that is true of all of the resistances. This one is a resistance against a policy begun by our enemy, Bush. So, the outcome of this resistance is terribly important for our electability, if the United States’ military machine and the Bush administration can suffer something like the Vietnam defeat in Iraq.
Note that on one point I give Pilger more credit than I do the Democratic candidates: curiously enough, he puts defeat in Vietnam in quotes. PIlger may recognize that the US “defeat” there was at least partly self-inflicted, caused by both military and political restraints, including the propaganda work of the Left itself. I’m not so sure today’s Democratic candidates would recognize that fact.
These Copperheads are just unswerving in their support of their “Valladigham platform”. One hundred and forty years ago, they would have been just as happy to leave the Negroes in slavery in exchange for “peace” as they are today to leave anyone not as white or privileged as themselves in tyranny.
The Pilger quote is priceless, and the analysis of its significance insightful. As an aging neocon myself I was on the anti-war side during Vietnam, and recall with clarity and some retrospective shame that we expected the US to fail and many certainly desired it as well. BUT–that was because we thought the US was on “the wrong side of history.” We had, we thought, a progressive justification for the anti-war position in our useful-idiot leftism.
Learning what the price of “progress” was in China and the Soviet Union, seeing it happen again after we left Vietnam–these experiences are part of what shifted my politics. Pilger, on the other hand, knows that he is aligned with bad people, must know that their goals along with their methods are terrible–and he does not care. Any stick to beat a dog. . .
I’m shocked, shocked I say! Candidates in a crowded primary field are pandering to their party’s base. Who ever heard of such complete disregard for truth, justice and the American Way?
Pardon the sarcasm, but isn’t this exactly what politicians in both parties do? Aren’t the Republicans just as mindlessly hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values in an effort to win a few more votes in their own primaries? Who really expects serious, cogent and insightful discussion of actual issues, especially in these contrived “debate” formats that have become little more than an opportunity for everyone involved to litter the airwaves with sound bites from their stump speeches?
As for the tendency of politicians to secretly (or not so secretly) hope that the administration currently in the White House will make a mess of their foreign policy, especially with a lame duck President, I seem to remember Republican outrage (mixed with a heaping dose of glee) when Carter dealt with Iran in the hostage crisis and Clinton was CIC while we had troops in the Balkans. Again, this may be unseemly, but it is not a fault owned by only one of the two major parties.
As to the issues of substance, the jury remains out on whether the surge will accomplish much more than a temporary reduction in casualties. Many observers are concerned that a big part of the seeming success is associated with the ever more hard edged divisions between Shia, Sunni and Kurd areas. Where these groups were previously much more integrated, today the divisions have become virtually absolute. This is not a path to long-term peace and stability … nor was it intended to be. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government has not taken the opportunity this respite was designed to provide to come together and begin working out their differences in order to pull the country together. Nor has our government seriously pressed them to stop bickering and do so. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case. In many ways, the current surge is analogous to the entire adventure; the military has done a fantastic job despite a wide array of systemic and political obstacles while the diplomatic front has been AWOL far too much of the time.
The long arc of warfare in the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries has been toward increased use of terror as an acceptable means of conducting war. Given that there are hundreds of definitions for terrorism and a virtually infinite number of interpretations of those definitions it is helpful to have some common agreement for what is and what is not terrorism. My own short definition is use of violence against civilians to create a climate of fear for the purpose of bringing about change in the governmental, economic or social structure. Of course, this definition could be leveled against virtually every nation including ours (firebombing Dresden and Tokyo for example), let alone would be revolutionary cadres. Oh, and don’t forget groups like the KKK.
It was my own hope in the period immediately following 9/11 that the U.S. might leverage the wide spread shock around the world to place on the international agenda the issue of how to better define and prohibit the use of terrorism. I feel that was an opportunity squandered. Instead, under the thinking of those at the top in the Bush administration, we have moved in the direction of arguing that we must beat them at their own game, in other words, do a better job of using many of the same tactics and techniques (cf. torture).
Chris White: I can only imagine you missed this post of mine.
The sad thing, however, is that, right now, the Democratic base is far more base than I ever recall thinking the Republican base was, even when I was a diehard liberal Democrat.
The Republicans, by the way, were not happy with Carter’s failed handling of the hostage crisis, not his non-existent success in handling it. I do not remember glee on their part; I remember disgusted outrage.
Chris:
Republicans talk about “issues” like lower taxes because they work (see Northern Ireland). They talk about immigration because it’s a huge problem (see California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona). They talk about family values because they see what the destruction of the nuclear family has brought about. They’re trying to solve problems, not “pander to a base”. They criticized Clinton’s actions in the Balkans because they did no good (and we still have troops there, after we were assured that they’d “be home by Christmas”), and as Neo points out, we were disgusted by Carter’s abysmal record in “handling” the Iranian hostage crisis.
The trouble with “progressives” is that they haven’t ever realized that their policies have never worked, anywhere they’ve ever been attempted.
If Republicans pandering to the base means ‘hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values’, well, pander on. Can someone explain what’s so terrible about that?
Though I imagine that what Chris White meant by ‘tough immigration’ was tough on illegal immigration.
Chris White’s definition of terrorism seems to be uniquely designed to equate ‘terrorism’ with ‘war’. It certainly isn’t my definition. While I certainly hope we minimize civilian casualties whenever possible (without jeopardizing victory), terrorist tactics require as many civilian casualties as possible while minimalizing risk of a military response.
As Chris White says, terrorists attempt to, ‘use of violence against civilians to create a climate of fear’, but they are also trying to prevent their enemy from bringing his military might to the party. This is why middle eastern countries have not lately openly declared war on Israel, but continue to use suicide bombers.
Terrorist strategy also includes hiding amonst civilians in an attempt to use the enemies moral code against him (and in mosques, etc.)
Of course, even Chris White admits his definition could be leveled against virtually every nation. It seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to equate terrorism with traditional warfare, thereby both deligitimizing war and/or legitimizing terrorism.
US Democrats actually want American soldiers to die in large numbers so they can win decisively in 2008. Is that despicable?
It depends on your point of view. If you absolutely hate America for what it has done to the progressive’s wish for a world marching ever leftward, you might sympathize with the US Democrats.
If you want the Iraqis to have a peaceful prosperous country, you want to kick the US DP in the cojones.
I did catch the post and I do appreciate that you have had similar complaints about the Republicans.
How are “success” and “failure” defined in terms of the Iran hostage crisis? No hostages died. We did not enter a war in Iran. Iran lost far more than it gained in its relations with most of the other nations of the world. The U.S. did not give in to any of Iran’s demands. The only clear failures were a pair of ill-fated rescue attempts in which none of the casualties and injuries were due to enemy action, but rather to weather related equipment failure and human error on the part of a pilot.
One can posit a very different approach and say that we could instead have taken over of the embassy with a commando raid by special forces immediately prior to a massive attack on the country. We can go on and posit that this could have saved most, if not all, the lives of the hostages but even more could have freed the country from its new theocratic regime, thus snuffing the rise of the radical Islamic movement and bringing about a new paradigm in the Middle East. Is this a realistic supposition?
One can also make the case that we “lost face” by failing to exert our military might. On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress? Or do we join the throng of kids calling for revenge and eager to see the big guy shake it off and break the pipsqueak’s face?
If one thinks that the entire Iraq adventure has been, at best, misguided from its initial planning forward, the relative “success” of the surge, that is to say the increased troop numbers (something many military voices called for BEFORE the invasion), is cold comfort and not a valid argument for the entire enterprise.
As for the issue of terrorism, the march of history over the past 150 years has been toward ever higher percentages of civilian versus military casualties during wars. When nation states use firebombing of civilian areas as ‘legitimate’ military targets using the logic that the enemy exists within the population, the question of who or what is a valid target for whom, using what means, is the entire crux of the issue. One cannot simply fall back on the idea that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not. This is ultimately the same argument of whether we do or do not follow laws in pursuit of those who break them.
appley Says: … If you want the Iraqis to have a peaceful prosperous country, you want to kick the US DP in the cojones.
You can’t kick what’s not there.
The US must fail to ‘save’ North Korea… what a loon…
The US is a big world problem even though we are not attacking places like [socialist] Sweden… it’s the Iraqs and North Korea.. and we must be stopped…. pffft…
Chris White:
“Aren’t the Republicans just as mindlessly hitting their own hot button issues like lower taxes, tough immigration and family values in an effort to win a few more votes in their own primaries?”
I dont think so. You see, our candidates can answer the question of whether or not illegal immigrants should be issued drivers licenses because, 1.) our guys have a moral and practical opinion on the issue and, 2). It happens to be the same opinion as the majority of the electorate.
“This is ultimately the same argument of whether we do or do not follow laws in pursuit of those who break them.”
No Chris, it isnt. Its a recognition of the fact that if you want to “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet”, you gotta do something more than just slap it on a bumper sticker, and that “something” in reality, often requires violence.
The Chris Whites of the world understand, Harry.
They slap on the bumper stickers, safely knowing they are required by their own standards to do nothing more. But, by their standards, they are morally superior heroes speaking truth to power.
The other part of the country does the real work, giving the Chris Whites opportunity to complain about what meanies we are.
Win-win for them, and don’t think for a minute they haven’t figured it out.
Chris White,
I suggest you read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” to get deeper understanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the denial prevalent in Europe.
How is it that the same people who claim Republicans are just a bunch of dumb hicks who are incapable of nuanced thought also claim not to be able to tell the difference between targeting civilians and the inevitable civilian casualties that result when targeting the enemies military?
I’m also wandering who exactly it is that has expressed the idea that ‘that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not’.
I hear this a lot so it MUST be a prevalent thought among a large percentage of Americans…
They slap on the bumper stickers, safely knowing they are required by their own standards to do nothing more. But, by their standards, they are morally superior heroes speaking truth to power.
The other part of the country does the real work, giving the Chris Whites opportunity to complain about what meanies we are.
Would that be something like the “Support the Troops” stickers? Or would that “real work” be something like leaving comments on this blog accusing people of being traitors?
The sad thing, however, is that, right now, the Democratic base is far more base than I ever recall thinking the Republican base was, even when I was a diehard liberal Democrat.
This is of course a completely ridiculous statement. It’s the Republican candidates who want to “double gitmo”, practice unrestrained torture, and invade Iran, positions that are not supported by a majority of the American public. On the left, the “radicals” want withdrawal from Iraq, which I would say is a fairly natural response to four years of inconclusive insurgency and also…a position supported by a majority of Americans.
Where to start! Lets start with Hitchens. I shall disclose my conflict of interest in stating first that I detest the man:
What worries me about the reaction of liberals and Democrats is not the skepticism [about recent positive developments in Iraq]…but the da[r]k and sinister impression they give that the worse the tidings, the better they would be pleased.
Evidence of that assertion? Oh, none. Just a “dark and sinister” impression. Sort of like on this blog. And I particularly enjoyed how he tacks that on at the very end of the column, as if he couldn’t write just one column about Iraq without insinuating the critics of the war are traitors. Nevermind that the right has been consistently wrong about Iraq, and that at this point skepticism is the ONLY appropriate response to reports of good news out of Iraq.
And how shall we impugn the credibility and motives of leading Democratic politicians? By citing a relatively unknown and very left-of-center “journalist”:
The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide.
Oh, but that wasn’t good enough. Instead you “reimagined” what Democrats would really say, in Pilger’s words.
Oh, but there is a caveat:
Yes, I know that the Democratic candidates don’t share Pilger’s extreme anti-American stance. But unfortunately their party has too many people who do.
Where? Find them, and point them out to me. That does not include everyone who disagrees with you about the war, despite what you may think.
Please. The right has done plenty to weaken the United States, without the help of anyone on the left. Do you for one second believe we are stronger now than we were before we invaded Iraq? Here, let’s test that assumption: how free are we to deal with Iran? Hmmm…less free because they can react against us in Iraq. How free are we to deal with militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Oh, less free because we 175,000 troops in Iraq. Would you say that Iran’s drive to obtain nuclear weapons or the strength of the militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan is evidence of our strength? Neither would I. “Leftists” and “Democrats” are not to blame for this because, as even you would admit, they did not start this war in Iraq.
As for the “progress” in Iraq, as a good neocon, you are probably aware that Stephen Biddle, a very sensible adviser to Gen. Patraeus, has stated that our current strategy will at best bring about eventual stability if we keep 100,000 or so troops in Iraq for the next 20-30 years. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? And do you think the American people would have signed on to this war if they knew that was in the cards? Do you think they’d sign onto it now? No, I don’t either. But I suppose that just makes a majority of Americans “leftists” or traitors, right?
When we do it, it is “collateral damage”, when they do it, it is “targeting civilians.” When they do it it is torture, when we do it there is a Presidential signing statement denying that it (waterboarding, for example) rises to the level of torture. It is very much an issue of legalistic semantics. When the AG nominee can’t clearly offer an opinion on whether a classic torture technique like waterboarding is indeed torture, we are on the road to defeat in the real war of ideas. I’m against it whether it is Them or Us. If that makes me a wacky idealist, that’s fine.
We, to our credit, generally discourage targeting civilians or using torture and tend to punish those over zealous soldiers who cross the line, at least when such activity comes to light. Radical groups, including al Quada, recruit the over zealous to perform such acts and they should be condemned and brought to justice for doing so.
While I am not a Democrat and find the endless political horserace less than ideal, the kind of over heated rhetoric that paints the Democratic Party as traitors wishing for U.S. troops to die so that they might win an election a symptom of a disease far worse than BDS.
Easy question. The latter, of course. Going to the teacher and tattling makes the big kid a puss …er…future liberal. Would you seriously respect the tattler? Good God. That alone speaks volumes.
Xan:
“Stephen Biddle, a very sensible adviser to Gen. Patraeus, has stated that our current strategy will at best bring about eventual stability if we keep 100,000 or so troops in Iraq for the next 20-30 years. Do you agree? Disagree? Why? And do you think the American people would have signed on to this war if they knew that was in the cards?”
Why shouldn’t they? After all, we’re still in S. Korea, we’re still in Kosovo. Does doing right have a time limit? Or is it that the Xans of the world are more embarrassed in the likelihood that the longer we maintain a steadfast conviction the worse off it is for Xan and his non existent moral convictions?
Yes, that’s it, isn’t it Xan?
Sometimes bumper stickers don’t quite do it do they Xan? Thats what really sets you off. You can try to turn this around, as you have, and attempt to make a “support the troops” bumper sticker the same thing, but what we support is actual freedom from oppression, not empty platitudes. Might that take 20 or 30 years Xan? Isn’t that worth it to somebody?
When we do it, it is “collateral damage”, when they do it, it is “targeting civilians.” When they do it it is torture, when we do it there is a Presidential signing statement denying that it (waterboarding, for example) rises to the level of torture.-Chris
I am bringing my understanding of the Left’s philosophy into play now. So isn’t it true, Chris, that the moral equivalency is only there because you believe that such actions are never justified without international approval and cooperation? In essence, America is not cooperating with terrorists or civilians amongst terrorists, and neither is terrorism cooperating with American plans, such as collateral damage or GitMo. Is not cooperation your ultimate goal for a better world? The ultimate solution to the nasty business of people dying.
How are “success” and “failure” defined in terms of the Iran hostage crisis?-Chris
Tap, if you are the same Tap as was present with Op at Bookworm Room, then you will know where this line of logic is going.
In general, what Chris brought up is the classic philosophical difference between those with a Leftist membership and those with a non-Leftist membership. By Leftist I include the Triangle of Death geometry present between National Socialism, Communists, and Democratic Socialists.
No hostages died. We did not enter a war in Iran. Iran lost far more than it gained in its relations with most of the other nations of the world.-Chris
To a Jacksonian or a conservative, winning is about gaining life and liberty over losing life and liberty. Losing is the latter only. The concept that people lose because they lost “relations” and status with other nations, is the philosophical assumption that humans, by cooperating, can ease social tensions and defuse violent situations.
This is only true if you believe in the martial virtues. This is not true if you believe in Leftist standards and values, however.
On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress? Or do we join the throng of kids calling for revenge and eager to see the big guy shake it off and break the pipsqueak’s face?
To requote this thought experiment, it is only a translation of Leftist philosophy which says that the only justification for violence or action of any kind is to call upon higher powers. And in the Leftist hierarchy of command, international approval is The higher power and authority. Authority does not come from individuals, after all, but from groups. This is opposite of martial virtues that dictate that power comes from individuals, also known as the people. It is also in direct contradiction to insurgency and guerrilla warfare, where the target is primarily people not specifically the higher authorities. Higher authorities only have authority because the people at the bottom give it to them. Raise up the people at the bottom against the authority, and the authority will cease to existence. Look at Iran when the Ayatollah deposed the Shah and also look at what the West is trying to do in Pakistan.
Isn’t trying to create global support simply an excuse to allow those ruthless enough to weld the people to them to win? I know the Left sees winning as both parties making agreements internationally. But that isn’t what happens after all. The Left does not have enough power to enforce cooperation, they only have the power to make reasonable people cooperate to their detriment. This frees up those that would target the real source of power, the people at the bottom, for carnage and violence.
Look at Petraeus’ COIN strategy to see how it treats individuals and people at the bottom. Then look at Leftist welfare and aristocratic attitudes to see who they see as the souce of power. It is simply the military’s bottom up hierarchy vs the aristocrat’s top down hierarchy. One is grassroots while the other is autocratic. Using philosophical premises and logic, this works out quite well even if the society that the Left resides in is democratic while the society the military resides in is dictatorial.
(something many military voices called for BEFORE the invasion)-Chris
The claim that many military voices called for a counter-insurgency doctrine to be implemented before the invasion, has few justifications. Did anyone hear generals and pundits talk about the need to craft stronger ties to the locals by arming them and ensuring that we fight with them to kill all enemies, foreign or domestic? There was nobody saying such things in 2003-4. Nobody that the Left would tolerate.
Even the Democrats and their Leftist allies that disagreed with the war, did so only based upon WMD, UN, and international law standards. Not COIN/Insurgency protests. Well, there was that “freedom fighter” business. Suddenly those freedom fighters are now our terrorist militia allies, suddenly. Fancy that. It just goes to show you how inverted are some people’s conceptions of what “grassroots” mean and what “top down leadership” is. They got those two mixed up.
More troops do not equal COIN. Not at all. Nor do “more local forces” equal COIN. The Iraqi face strategy doesn’t equal COIN either, as practiced by Abizaid at least. Counter-insurgency requires the building of a loyal powerbase from the ground up, individual by individual, family by family, sector by sector. This is completely mutually exclusive with the Leftist world view that people can simply be commanded to cooperate from the top down by those in the know.
When nation states use firebombing of civilian areas as ‘legitimate’ military targets using the logic that the enemy exists within the population, the question of who or what is a valid target for whom, using what means, is the entire crux of the issue.-Chris
Military necessity is not a field that the international goon squad of corrupt bureacrats have an interest in improving upon. That status quo is not going to change regardless of how many people complain about civilian casualties.
One cannot simply fall back on the idea that if we do it, it is okay, if our enemy does it, it is not.
The moral equivalence that unintended civilian casualties are not okay while enemy intended civilian casualties are also not okay, is a philosophy bereft of free will. It does not take free will into consideration at all.
It is convenient, in a way, since the only way to get lambs and lions to cooperate together is to make them do so, against their wills, if wills they have. The Left lacks the ability to erase civilian casualties from the field of war. So they erase free will, thereby erasing the difference between intended consequences and unintended consequences. Thus murder would be the same as manslaughter. Would it then make any logical sense to say that someone thinks murder is not okay if they do it, but manslaughter is okay if we do it? What kind of logic does such statements use? A logic bereft of free will.
The issue of contention was never about whether such things were “okay” or not. The issue of contention was always “who authorizes the use of force”. The Left says the international “higher authority” cabal. I say never them. It is never okay to give into the demands of those that take more power than they actually have. Regardless of what those bureacrats actually want you to do.
Since American collateral damage is not authorized by the UN while terrorism is authorized by the UN, whether through bribery or simply ideological adherence, American actions will always be “not okay”. It doesn’t really matter whether America did something bad or not. What matters is that America does not knuckle under demands from the international community that such a magnificent fighting force such as the US Marines and US Army should be used on assignments of Sex for Food by any UN bureacrat or other internationally sanctioned group like the Human Rights Commission in need of such services. That’s what is not okay with the higher authorities.
No Chris, it isnt. Its a recognition of the fact that if you want to “Save Darfur” or “Free Tibet”, you gotta do something more than just slap it on a bumper sticker, and that “something” in reality, often requires violence.-Harry
Chris may authorize such violence. If the international community agreed to it. Did he not, after all, say that he wanted Saddam removed in Gulf War 1 because the UN had sanctioned his removal?
I suggest you read Bruce Bawer’s “While Europe Slept” to get deeper understanding of the reaction to 9/11 and the denial prevalent in Europe-expat
It is not really about whether Chris is well read in the topic or not. As Op demonstrated at Bookworm Room, you can be knowledgeable about a subject but still limited by your philosophical assumptions. No amount of new reading can change someone’s basic philosophical assumptions that they have held for many years.
Ymar:
“And in the Leftist hierarchy of command, international approval is The higher power and authority. Authority does not come from individuals, after all, but from groups.”
Have a problem? Create a committee to study the problem, appoint somebody else to be in charge and pay them from the public coffers. That way if the problem continues, you can use the poor sap you hired for the job as a scapegoat for why the system failed, create another level of bureaucracy above that and pay them with more public funding, all to avoid doing something about the problem yourself.
In Oregon, you cant even pump your own gas. That would be dangerously capricious. Its better the “highly trained” minimum wage “specialist” pumps it for you.
Or is it that the Xans of the world are more embarrassed in the likelihood that the longer we maintain a steadfast conviction the worse off it is for Xan and his non existent moral convictions?
Well, actually I was thinking more about what it means for our national security that we have 100,000 soldiers sitting in Iraq for two or three decades, will insurgencies fester in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Clearly you haven’t considered that little problem, or you might think of it as conundrum more for our country than my own personal moral convictions.
Easy question. The latter, of course. Going to the teacher and tattling makes the big kid a puss …er…future liberal. Would you seriously respect the tattler? Good God. That alone speaks volumes.
And thus, the war is explained. Remember kids: for all the high-falutin’ language about WMDS, it really was about picking up a smaller country and throwing it up against the well, demonstrating that in fact our country has the biggest balls in the whole world.
On the school playground do we applaud and respect the big kid who, blindsided by a pipsqueak showing off, resists the urge to pound said pipsqueak into a bloody pulp and goes instead to the teacher and seeks proper redress?
But what if the “teacher,” after being asked for “proper redress,” then smiles benignly at the “pipsqueak” while the “pipsqueak” blithely continues inflicting violence on the “big kid” and many other children on the playground? Big kid needs to do some ass-kicking, I think.
All the right or wrong phlosophical arguments aside, everyone seems to missing what the denial of funding for the war is going to do to the military, it is a very big deal and could set us into a tailspin for years to come.
The war will go on as we have troops in the field so the money will come from stateside with huge implications. Laying off 100,000 contactors for a start, cancelling or defering the start of many contracts for new weapons or repair of the worn out equipment we have. Then it will be parking ships and airplanes and stopping all training and refitting. I hope they dont know what they are doing, if they do, it is treasonous becuase it means the democratic party really wants to hamstring the military for years to come.
I guess Dr. Seuss applys, I love the ending:
a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmH0c7LW3E=”>
if link doesnt work cut and paste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEmH0c7LW3E
Xan:
“Well, actually I was thinking more about what it means for our national security that we have 100,000 soldiers sitting in Iraq for two or three decades, will insurgencies fester in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
That’s you pretending Iraq isn’t a national security matter, and/or pretending that national security drives your concerns. I’m convinced that it isn’t. You’re going to have to find another excuse as to why we shouldn’t continue to fight this one out. So far, you excuses are exhausted.
CW: When we do it, it is “collateral damage”, when they do it, it is “targeting civilians.”
The inability to make moral distinctions between accidental but unavoidable deaths in war and the deliberate attempt to maximize such deaths has sometimes been referred to as moral relativism, but it shouldn’t be — it’s really a kind of moral imbecility. An imbecility that has come to characterize ever growing segments of the contemporary Democratic Party as it continues to be bent out of any decent shape by its frenzied and degenerate left wing.
CW (after apparently giving his head a shake): We, to our credit, generally discourage targeting civilians or using torture and tend to punish those over zealous soldiers who cross the line, at least when such activity comes to light. Radical groups, including al Quada, recruit the over zealous to perform such acts and they should be condemned and brought to justice for doing so.
Some people seem to think that if you say something ridiculous and stupid one minute and then turn around and say the opposite the next, this will make you look complicated. It doesn’t. It just makes you look simple, and I don’t mean that in a good way. These are the modern equivalent of the “useful idiots” that were so helpful to the previous incarnation of the totalitarian impulse.
X: And thus, the war is explained. Remember kids: for all the high-falutin’ language about WMDS, it really was about picking up a smaller country and throwing it up against the well, demonstrating that in fact our country has the biggest balls in the whole world.
And thus we see the extent and depth of the Lefty view of strategy — no doubt unconsciously, but quite vividly, they view the world as just a backdrop for the projection of nothing more than their schoolboy fears and anxieties.
No, X, I’m afraid there really is more to it — but, though the language isn’t really all that “high-falutin'”, you might find it a bit of a strain. For one thing, while WMDs were a serious concern, particularly given the weakening international sanctions, they were certainly not the only one. The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart. It was, from the start, a risk, certainly, but a calculated one, and ultimately — in the terrible light of 9/11 — a necessary one, that would only have to be repeated, later, under worse circumstances, should it fail. Like all such risks, it’s had its mistakes, and even partial failures. But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through. Even the need to put up with the tantrums of the arrested-development left.
“The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order that the US will be weakened worldwide.”
that sure is warped thinking. Personally I would like a triumph for Iraqi resistance just on principle alone. After all, I would like to win if I was being bullied and trampled on in my country by foreigners. And it isn’t just Iraq. I cheer for Hamas, I cheer for Hezballah. I cheer for Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez. I cheer for everyone being trampled upon by anyone else. The US is Godzilla, Israel has a sneaky hand in the roid rage…oops, I mean the war on terror. Democrates, Republicans…they pay the same piper for slightly different tunes. BFD.
Bonnie: I cheer for Hamas, I cheer for Hezballah. I cheer for Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez.
Once upon a time you could have seen her likes cheering for Hitler, being trampled upon by those sneaky Joos, couldn’t you? Bonnie’s not a moral imbecile, at least — she’s quite clear about which side she’s on. But you couldn’t ask for a better illustration of what the deranged and degenerate left has been reduced to these days. Thanks, Bonnie.
This is why I left the Democratic party. When an American president represents one side of a conflict and a mass murdering dictator represents the other side of a conflict…it should not be difficult to pick the American side to win.
Uhm, I think Democrats see evil, it is just, as with the left, they pick it to prove there is no such thing. Evil is good, good is neutral, blue is green, and everything is happy, give or take. It is why they MUST choose for us to lose.
Oh, but you all have it figured out right? All the same on conservative blogs, like you get a marching order and “talk” about it.
Anyone care to know how many military families are actually relieved about what the Dems are proposing?
Can a war be won without the support of the loved ones at home? Doubtful. But, all YOU are told is to derail the Dems and take no responsiblity yourselves for supporting the GOP who for the last 6 years provided no oversight, ran up the largest debt ever and looked the other way while only 1% fought their war. Well, ITS YOUR WAR TOO!
Serious problems with the war in Iraq are well chronicled, but I am struck by one that does not seem to trouble the country’s leadership, even though it is profoundly corrosive to our common good: the disparity between the lives of the few who are fighting and being killed, and the many who have been asked for nothing more than to continue shopping.
Those who rationalize this disconnect have argued that our soldiers are volunteers, happy doing what they signed up to do.
Hubris. GOP Hubris.
And, Sally, just read your post. This is a common tactic among the right wing. If they don’t agree, smear them. Classic and totally transparent.
YOU DON’T get to define people. you may think that you have the power to do that, and that somehow a person’s credibility goes down the drain. The same old line from every right winger is to try and discredit. Problem is, it’s such a tired old line that you end up looking really weak.
Don’t like what they say, and derail their patriotism as if only you and your party have that base covered. HUBRIS
Finally, answer this: WHO IS “WE” when YOU are referring to “WE” are winning in Iraq? Who exactly is we?
Because it certainly isn’t YOU and it certainly isn’t YOUR KIDS and it certainly isn’t costing YOU anything now is it?
It’s easy to support a war when you aren’t the one doing the fighting. HUBRIS.
Sally offers, “The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart. It was, from the start, a risk, certainly, but a calculated one, and ultimately – in the terrible light of 9/11 – a necessary one, that would only have to be repeated, later, under worse circumstances, should it fail.”
I’m trying to remember which countries in the Middle East the terrorists of 9/11 came from. Oh, right, they were primarily from Saudi Arabia. But the leadership, surely that was Saddam, right? No? Oh, it was Osama bin Laden, I think I remember that now. But he hid out and got his support from Iraq, didn’t he? Oh, he flits between Afghanistan and Pakistan does he?
In the months leading up to the Iraq invasion we were inundated by the Bush administration with spurious links between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, despite the actual facts of the matter. Advertising works I guess.
Hmmm, so why did we target Iraq again? Because Saddam might possibly, in a number of years, if he got materials and expertise from other nations and continued to thumb his nose at the international community, have reconstituted his dismantled, nascent WMD program. Then, once he had WMD he could have decided to share them with al Quada, even though he and al Quada were not exactly friendly, because he ran “the most vicious and terror-supporting regime.”
I thought that regime was in Libya. Oh, right, we managed to use international sanctions and diplomatic means to change that. Wait, wait, I remember, it’s Syria, or maybe Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Golly, this is so confusing.
As this neocon vs. leftist tussle rolls along I continue to be astounded by the some of the extremes voiced in the posts. From the assertion that the Democratic Party is virtually no different than Stalinist Communism on the one side, to the “I cheer for Hamas” idiocy on the other.
The strongest correlation for the creation of terrorists seems to be among youth who have achieved a level of higher education and modest economic means but who live under highly repressive regimes that use draconian means to maintain power and order, like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan. And yes, Iraq and Iran. The question is how to best drain those terrorist-breeding swamps. Having a different view of how to do that, one that does not tend toward showing the terrorists that we have bigger balls than they do, does not make me a traitor … or a puss. I believe that the invasion of Iraq has weakened our long-term security, especially because it failed to balance military might with diplomatic smarts and international support.
Laura: This is a common tactic among the right wing. If they don’t agree, smear them.
A common tactic “among” the left wing too, then wouldn’t you say?
Get over yourself, Laura. You’re wearing that “military family” badge pretty thin. Here’s what you need to understand: this isn’t about party politics. The war isn’t a game, and choosing sides isn’t like picking your team. This is about doing what needs to be done to stop a great evil, and about choosing sides in that struggle. If you want to argue about that, fine, do so, but driveling on about shopping doesn’t do it. And your whole “military families = victims” schtick is just unworthy of the bravery and sacrifices of those who’ve volunteered to fight in this struggle.
You sum up quite clearly how the right wing thinks about this Sally.
Here is something for you to chew on. This HAS been a political football. For too long. The GOP has attempted to silence the rational voices on the war and laid the work on a small group of people. The lessons of Vietnam for the PNAC et al were clear…give hefty tax cuts, infuse the country with rampant nationalism, have “support the troops” rallies, show up and give speeches with the troops in the background as a great photo op, keep pictures of the fallen out of the mainstream, and tell your fellow americans that they need to stay the course.
While you might poo poo the idea of the military family’s dribble was it? You underestimate the power of the 1% of the country fighting the war; their families.
Your arrogance is astounding really Sally. Once again, easy to support something that doesn’t affect you personally, as long as you have your tax cuts and feel “safe”…People tend to care deeply about the issues that affect them deeply. This one just passes through the filter in your brain and gets cast aside. Perhaps because you know exactly why you have that knawing feeling in your gut when you see a photo of a fallen soldier, or hear of a soldier killing himself in country.
It’s called guilt. And, you Sally, are complicit in the country being far less safe. Thanks so much!
Partnership for a Secure America has this article worth reading: about the military
“Thank You for Your Service. Now Draft Me.”
by Matthew Rojansky | November 20th, 2007
“Party Here, Sacrifice over there”
It’s a sobering read from someone deeply touched by the war. Right Left Center should read as much as they can from these soldiers. We owe it to them to support them as they wrestle with the aftermath of war.
Will Bardenwerper, an Army infantry officer from 2003 to 2007, was stationed for 13 months in Nineveh and Anbar Provinces in Iraq.
That’s you pretending Iraq isn’t a national security matter, and/or pretending that national security drives your concerns. I’m convinced that it isn’t. You’re going to have to find another excuse as to why we shouldn’t continue to fight this one out. So far, you excuses are exhausted.
Excuses…you’re a clever one, though not clever enough to understand my point. Which is (in case you’re wondering) that although the right is busy celebrating the “victory” over al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is busy making itself very comfortable in Pakistan’s western provinces, and is having a grand time killing our soldiers in Afghanistan as well. So I would like you to explain how you can dismiss that situation and yet consider yourself someone who is “serious” about national security matters.
Sally says: “And your whole “military families = victims” schtick is just unworthy of the bravery and sacrifices of those who’ve volunteered to fight in this struggle.”
That is another common tactic, rehash the worthless words “bravery and sacrifices” and “voluteered”.
Sally, how many soldiers have been backdoor drafted? 70,000. Did they “voluteer” for that? Wake up Sally.
X: great post and really great website
No, X, I’m afraid there really is more to it – but, though the language isn’t really all that “high-falutin’”, you might find it a bit of a strain. For one thing, while WMDs were a serious concern, particularly given the weakening international sanctions, they were certainly not the only one. The real point of the Iraq invasion was to begin the long but essential program of draining the terrorist-breeding swamp of the Middle East, by striking at the most vicious and terrorist-supporting regime at its heart.
Oh, I’m quite familiar with that rationale, as it is repeatedly peddled alongside the WMD and humanitarian rationales. However, I might remind you that:
a) Saddam Hussein’s connections to Sunni and Shiite terrorists in the Middle East have always paled in comparison to those of Iraq
b) There were more al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq after the war then before, and
c) al Qaeda is resurgent in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
So it appears that instead of draining the swamp, we instead poured more water into it and added some more mosquitoes for good measure. The situation is now returning to something closer to what Iraq was like before we invaded (though despite victory proclamations, al Qaeda is still busy killing people in Iraq) AND the situation in Afghanistan is much worse. So not only was that rationale always insupportable, it also didn’t work. Not that those facts will change your mind.
But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through.
Oh, and one more thing…grownups understand that foreign policy is not premised on silly analogies.
Once upon a time you could have seen her likes cheering for Hitler, being trampled upon by those sneaky Joos, couldn’t you?
It bears reminding that Fascists are on the right of the political dial, not the left. And according to many “good” Germans at the time, Hitler was only responding to the threat of Jews infiltrating and undermining the national security of the Fatherland? Does that ring a bell Sally?
Has anyone read Podhoretz and “WW IV” to get a marvelously clear view of what this struggle is all about? There may be disagreements about appropriate tactics to use, and which battle made more sense–going after Iraq and not Iran, for example–but the conclusions cannot be avoided. One may accuse Podhoretz, of all kinds of “bad reasoning” as did the late Norman Mailer, but again, the conclusions match the data that got him there. This is a significant human struggle, no less than the fascist threats of a different era, or the false Marxist ideology of domination that followed that struggle. The horror of this, new and viscious threat is shown by its posute of no concern about MAD counters and the oft stated notion that the political state does not matter, the ideology of reward in a paradise in the sky will greet the faithful. Nothing like this has been seen since Mao’s oft cited notion that the loss of several hundred million Chinese does not matter, since a billion will be left alive in victory.
We need to ponder these things on this Thanksgiving holiday, and not forget that America is the only real protector of civil society in the world.
What is more American, diplomacy or war? What best represents the ideals, institutions, traditions, goals and intentions of the U.S.: diplomacy or war?
The answer is obvious: diplomacy. American, unlike every other superpower through history, has relied mostly on diplomacy to maintain its security. To be sure, there have been cases where America misued its military power or other cases where diplomacy failed and military power was the only remaining option.
Given that, why do Republicans always root for American diplomacy to fail?
Why, for example, do right wingers blame American diplomacy in Vietnam for failing? Vietnam was a very difficult situation with deep, unreasolved conflicts within the country and the region. American diplomacy was certainly an incomplete success there, but why do right-wingers insist that it failed abjectly and that, therefore, the only possible recourse was war, war and more war?
When American policy was to contain Saddam Hussein, every right winger from sea to shining sea, was begging for America to fail. After 9/11, every right winger with access to a printing press or a microphone, declared that containment had failed, that American diplomacy had failed–and desperately hoped for evidence to prove the assertion correct.
We now know that the containment strategy worked. Saddam was unable to obtain WMD, even though all signs are clearly that he would have preferred to have them.
To be sure, the success of diplomacy in Iraq was incomplete, but clearly much more complete than any success the war policy can now claim.
Why is it that right wingers feel so free to root for the failure of diplomacy, yet feel that rooting for the failure of war is somehow unpatriotic?
Is it plain small-mindedness, denial or ignorance?
Laura: thank you, and feel free to visit anytime.
Sally says:”But grownups understand that, and understand the need for the patience and fortitude to see things through. Even the need to put up with the tantrums of the arrested-development left.”
Oh gosh Sally, really? Grownups understand that? I wonder if you have kids in high school or college right now Sally. I mean, you write about the long hard work, yet you’re perfectly comfortable looking the other way while the same soldiers keep going out over and over without end.
how long you think “we” can keep that up Sally? On the backs of so few who are working really hard over and over again so you can feel safe here at home? And, that patronizing tone “it’s hard work” crap is just that, crap. If you were really concerned about our national security, and were a true conservative, you would be highly concerned about the costs, the corruption, the lack of oversight, the debt, and most importantly PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN!
Your cheap two cent flag from WalMart and your yellow magnet mixed in with your patronizing remarks to someone WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE WAR THAN YOU DO sally, are disgusting.
Has anyone read Podhoretz and “WW IV” to get a marvelously clear view of what this struggle is all about?
I’m sorry, but Podhoretz is mired in a fog of fear about swarthy Arabs. In no way does Iran present the threat to us that communism or the Soviet Union did, and in no way do they have the ability to dominate the Middle East as Germany did Europe. Unfortunately such fear-mongering by Podhoretz and his ilk is necessary, because no rational American would be convinced of the necessity of starting another war in the Middle East unless we faced an existential threat to our nation. But we don’t.
X, that is indeed a must read. What scares the bejeezus out of me and many military families, and I might add THE GENERALS, is this push for war with Iran.
Iran is years away from a nuke, period. Yet, Cheney and his ilk are pounding away on the NIE and keeping it out of circulation until the dissenting intel analysts put the language in that the WHITE HOUSE wants in. Smells like Iraq to me.
The run up to Iraq was very much the same. Same song and dance routine. The hubris lies in the FACT that Iran will retaliate. It’s like the same old crap we saw with Iraq, “greeting us like liberators” lasting “weeks not months” and “the war will pay for itself”…these people would rather construct the war with big business, BIG OIL, and a few neocons from PNAC and leave all the experts scratching their heads.
Imperial Hubris, plain and simple.
Laura: Your cheap two cent flag from WalMart and your yellow magnet mixed in with your patronizing remarks to someone WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE WAR THAN YOU DO sally, are disgusting.
Laura’s yelling and name calling are right up there with X’s “who’s got the bigger balls” level of international conflict analysis. Both could do with an injection of, you know, ideas, thought, reflection, etc., but neither seems capable of anything close to that, being too caught up in their partisan zeal.
CW and JS at least give evidence that they’re able to think, when pushed to it, but both seem stuck on some elementary school civics class level wherein “diplomacy” is a magical word that can conjure away any conflict, and only Black Hat Republicans (“Rethuglicans” anyone?) lust for war at any cost. If only it were true.
What a transparent cheap shot Sally. It’s okay, I get it, you are defensive.
As if I don’t know what’s a stake Sally?
Your posts do a better job of enlightening people on the winger mindset than any rebut from me. Please keep posting and reveal yourself while I keep my own understanding from the perspective or zeal is it? that I have come to know. You go do whatever it is that you do to keep you “informed” and don’t forget to “support the troops”!
Now, go out and do the right thing?
My, my, they’re certainly out in force today.
Jack:
“When American policy was to contain Saddam Hussein, every right winger from sea to shining sea, was begging for America to fail. After 9/11, every right winger with access to a printing press or a microphone, declared that containment had failed, that American diplomacy had failed—and desperately hoped for evidence to prove the assertion correct.”
Right wingers could only say those things when they happened to be true, not as a reflection of a desire despite the facts. Thats the difference between liberals cheerleading defeat in Iraq, and right-wingers accurate portrayal of a “containment” system that routinely shot at our aircraft, attempted to assassinate a former US President and successfully nullified economic sanctions with European assistance. All the while liberals were blaming their own country that this “containment” policy was depriving Iraqi children food and medical supplies at the rate of 5,000 dead babies a month. So even while we were doing what you now are saying was the right thing, we were the bad guys even then.
Laura, I am sorry to say this, Laura, but you really are starting to sound like an hysterical moonbat, Laura, using typical leftwing shrieking and insult to silence your opponents, Laura, and, myself, I really am getting tired of your playing the “I’m in a military family!” Laura. They’re very good for educating us on the leftwinger mindset though, Laura.
I’m sorry, but I think venting and ranting are all you have to offer at this point, Laura.
Now, go out and do the right thing, which, in your case, I think would be splashing some cold water on your face, and taking a nice nap.
The replies to Podhoretz’s “WWIV” in this month’s Commentary are well worth reading:
“What Kind of War are We Fighting, and Can We Win It”?
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/What-Kind-of-War-Are-We-Fighting–and-Can-We-Win-It–10959
“The issue here, moreover, is more complex than “neoconservatives versus realists.” I am a conservative who does not fit in either category. Contrary to the realists, I agree that democracy promotion is in our long-range interest and stability by tyranny is not. But, with due respect to my neoconservative friends, a healthy respect for democracy worthy of the name recognizes that (a) it calls for a cultural transformation that cannot be brought about quickly, (b) it is of dubious value as a counterterrorism tool, and (c) it may be an impossibility in a society committed to maintaining an Islamic identity.
On the last two points, it is noteworthy that jihadist atrocities are commonly planned and carried out inside Western democracies. There are a variety of good reasons to promote democracy abroad, but protection against jihadism is evidently not one of them. Further, the principal root cause of terrorism is Islamic ideology, not a want of the benefits democracy affords; so the premise that democracy would eradicate radicalism is flawed. Finally, we conflate democracy with liberty, but the two are saliently different.”–Andrew C. McCarthy
The New (quoting Andrew C. McCarthy): But, with due respect to my neoconservative friends, a healthy respect for democracy worthy of the name recognizes that (a) it calls for a cultural transformation that cannot be brought about quickly, (b) it is of dubious value as a counterterrorism tool, and (c) it may be an impossibility in a society committed to maintaining an Islamic identity.
Well, finally a critique of neoconservatism — or at least of a version of neoconservatism — that actually makes some rational points. I think the first point, especially, is important and accurate — the full transformation takes time, but like any process it has to have a start. The second two are more debatable, and are linked. First, if a democratic culture of any sort is impossible in an Islamic society, then I’m doubtful that Islamic societies can survive for long in a modern world. But, second, if a democratic culture is possible in such societies, it would represent the sort of transformation needed to turn them against the state-supported, oil-funded terrorists in their midst, without which support the foreign jihadis would soon wither. The point is that Islamist terrorism doesn’t occur in a vacuum — it represents the extreme reaction of a hierarchical, tribal-based culture to the very existence of the modern world, of which liberal democracy is a key aspect. If the latter triumphs, the former dies — and the jihadis are well aware of that.
The Honorable Robert M. Gates
Secretary of Defense
Dear Sir,
We, the undersigned, would be grateful as all hell if you would muster out Laura’s son so she would quit bleating about military families and the war and could go back to crocheting or whatever she did before her son joined up.
Sincerely,
Occam’s Beard
Any other signatories?
Laura, please cut with the “military family crap” in your arguments. You really demean yourself and your loved ones. You sound like Cindy Sheehan. The more you write, the less you convince.
My father was in the military, and he would have been ashamed if I had whined and moaned like you do.
Occam’s Beard–
I’ll sign your letter.
Oh little pets, you are so unaware of what you sow. It matters not to me if you are convinced or not.
I am working with thousands of other military family members to bring this issue to the fore. PTSD, SUICIDE, all have been making the main stream news. you won’t find that in a neo con blog or Rush, HANNITY et al, as this is news that they don’t want you to know. Sadly, it’s not NEW news.
The military is broken. In part because of a policy by Bush and others to make it as pain free and sacrifice free as possible. All of you are complicit in that.
When it does break, you won’t have Clinton to blame but yourselves and your support of his policies. You did nothing. The draft will come with the next admininstration, guaranteed. I will applaud the first brave soul to bring it about, in part to protect our country and in part to make everyone in this country a participant in our country’s foreign policy.
For now, enjoy eating your Turkey or whatever it is that you do on Thanksgiving. And, don’t forget that thousands of soldiers won’t be home, because they were drafted, again.
Uh, Laura, perhaps you were so busy studying nuclear physics to assess Iran’s program that you forgot to notice that in the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka, “There ain’t no draft, son.”
And there hasn’t been one for over 30 years.
But thanks for the Betty Crocker analysis on the military. The loss of Gen. Petraeus’ staff is our gain.
Some of this complaining would be valid if this were a war of choice.
During the Cold War, we could choose to not fight, or to fight, or to engage diplomatically, or ignore.
If we fought, we could choose to end in a draw–Korea–or a loss–Viet Nam.
The point, though, was to have a net winning percentage calculated with an infinite number of factors. Which, of course, provided fodder for a near-infinite number of arguments.
We could not choose to ignore or lose them all.
Today, we have the same situation. It may be possible to ignore/lose the Iraq war, but still need to win on an aggregate basis. But if we need to win in the aggregate, we have to fight someplace. Why not Iraq?
The Kay and Duelfer reports are clear that reinstituting the WMD industry was Saddaam’s goal. Having left him alone with Oil for Food, end of sanctions, no UN inspectors, he would have.
The complaints of one poster above that things aren’t going well in Afghanistan are composed to let us believe that he/she would be all on board for fighting in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. It’s bogus. Wherever we fight, we shouldn’t. To keep up some kind of seriousnes cred, they pretend they’d be okay fighting over there, not here. But that’s a lie. Were we to dump Iraq and increase the effort in Afghanistan, there would be a neck-snapping one-eighty about how awful it is to beat up on those poor farmers who …..
I think the left will have a hard time livng down dem congressman Clyburn’s statememt that good news from Iraq would be “bad news for us.” By “us” he means the dems, not America.
Clyburn told the truth. The rest of the lefty noise is nothing but an attempt to distract the discussion from Clyburn’s truth.
And that’s one reason I don’t choose to engage such as X as if he/she had the slightest good faith. They lie and they know they lie and I know they lie and I choose not to waste my time.
They Lie? Right. If you were really concerned about national security, you wouldn’t look the other way on Afghanistan.
this war in Iraq is all about oil, and 9-11, WMD were the necessary reasons.
Laura’s yelling and name calling are right up there with X’s “who’s got the bigger balls” level of international conflict analysis.
Sally, attributing other people’s arguments to me is not actually that clever.
Laura Says:
“November 21st, 2007 at 8:19 am
And, Sally, just read your post. This is a common tactic among the right wing. If they don’t agree, smear them. Classic and totally transparent.”
I have been unable to have a conversation about facts regarding a public policy with a leftist for years now. They always push it down in the muck about the [bad] intentions of ‘right wingers’… Even all your Hubris posts are essentially that (a personality judgment)… Not just about Iraq. About anything… Its always the right wingers being sell outs (re: its about $$$) or evil or whatever…
Projection Sally. Projection.
Bottom line, war was badly planned, too expensive, and it has been hard on the military. But they still want to be there (from the polls I’ve seen) and the surge seems to have helped. Maybe we can get out in a year or two and ‘win’ / not have screwed up Iraq / made it better than under Saddam… this might cause a domino effect and really screw with the other dictatorships in the ME… which would be a ‘win’ on the next level…
Laura.
Where’s my oil?
I will give you credit for accidentally hitting on a point, although you haven’t figured it out. If Saddaam had a lock on the ME oil–his, Kuwait’s, Saudi Arabia’s by conquest and the rest by intimidation–he’d have more money than was good for him and for us. And the less wealthy countries, over a barrel, so to speak, would be in chaos.
And if you are still taking CBS seriously, you get what you deserve.
The suicide and PTSD issues have been dissected. The suicide rate in the military, corrected for age and gender, is slightly behind that of the civilians.
The increase in PTSD claims at the VA is coming from Vietnam-era guys, almost half of whom have no record of being near combat, or even in SEA.
It also comes about because of an expansion in the definition.
I know vets of WW II who are still troubled by their experiences, but who came home, raised families, got their kids educated, paid their taxes, and in general looked like normal people but who haven’t had a good night’s sleep in half a century. Or who can’t talk about one thing, or another, even today without getting emotional. We’d consider them to be suffering from PTSD, if we thought about it. But we didn’t then and we don’t now.
When it becomes politically useful…now everybody’s an expert.
Laura, I am sorry to say this, Laura, but you really are starting to sound like an hysterical moonbat, Laura, using typical leftwing shrieking and insult to silence your opponents, Laura, and, myself, I really am getting tired of your playing the “I’m in a military family!” Laura. They’re very good for educating us on the leftwinger mindset though, Laura.
Laura, just be aware that if you were pro-war and the mother of a son serving in the military, these guys would be carrying you on their shoulders right now and resting laurels at your feet…while at the same time bitching out “leftists” who have the nerve to complain about cuts for services for veterans. Instead they want-in a time of war-to have your son kicked out of the military. So, “support the troops” and all that from the REAL patriots…unless you disagree with them. If you’re not careful they’ll be hunting down your son’s myspace account and staking out your house.
Some of this complaining would be valid if this were a war of choice.
And it’s downhill from there. I suppose I need to remind you that since Saddam didn’t invade us, then it actually was a war of choice…except in the minds of right-wingers who, busy conflating Sunni/Shiite terrorists with Saddam Hussein, thought that the attacks on 9/11 were merely a “first strike” or something like that.
I know vets of WW II who are still troubled by their experiences, but who came home, raised families, got their kids educated, paid their taxes, and in general looked like normal people but who haven’t had a good night’s sleep in half a century. Or who can’t talk about one thing, or another, even today without getting emotional. We’d consider them to be suffering from PTSD, if we thought about it. But we didn’t then and we don’t now.
When it becomes politically useful…now everybody’s an expert.
And there it is! Back in the good old days, people were tougher and stronger, and dealt with the trauma of war by being tough and manly and sucking it up and never crying in public. Or actually, they shot themselves, drank themselves to death, killed their wives and kids and then themselves, became criminals, became homeless, or got addicted to drugs. Either way since they were nicely hidden from view and nobody talked about PTSD (because everybody thought guys who were scarred by combat were weak or cowards) then it wasn’t a problem, like liberals want to make it nowadays.
Or in reality, PTSD has ALWAYS existed and WILL ALWAYS exist because war is in fact hell, and the only way some men can get through killing other humans is by having no consciences, or having the consciences imparted over decades by society rapidly dismantled in the midst of a war. It’s just nowadays, in our more liberal and understanding society, we’d prefer to take care of these guys and not tell them to quietly go drink themselves to death.
the only way some men can get through killing other humans is by having no consciencesi>
Do you mean Che Guevara wasn’t all peace and light? Or did he just get used to it, once he got the first few hundred executions out of the way?
Thanks X. The Iraq war model will be disected is it? not that far from now as a terrible mistake. WWII is no comparison; we were all in it together, and the troops went in, and came home. They weren’t subjected to tour after tour with hardly any training in between. The common man, and woman was invested.
And, let’s not forget the profiteering. What was it that Roosevelt said about profiteering in WWII? Everyone from Rosie the Riveter to the women who volunteered to take care of Rosie’s kids while Rosie constructed airplanes for her husband Joe, to the little lady down the street saving her bacon grease for the war effort. America was invested.
That is not the case now. Disecting the data on suicides? And where may I ask did you get THAT info? Right, a right winger. Do you personally know someone who has taken their life after their deployment? I do, more than a few, and the aftermath is hell. The soldier is no different from America’s soldiers past; they still carry the same baggage. Its just this time, they carry the load of 99% of the country who makes not a single sacrifice in the war that is supposed to make us safer at home.
We say things like “thank you for your service” but do nothing about the policy to keep them there beyond their end of contract date. We keep silent and break down the statistics because it is such an ugly truth that we can barely stand to recognize it, and put it off as only a “few” soldiers have this problem, but not the majority.
Smedley Butler, the mose revered soldier to have ever served with the Marines was vilified when he truthfully said that “war is a racket”. He’s absolutely right.
Moving a Nation to Care.
How to do that? Find out
I guess there really ISN”T a problem right?
Defense officials plan to have new counselors, charged with guiding wounded troops through the complex military and veterans health systems, in place and working with patients early next year.
Veterans support groups called the move an important first step, but said making sure the new recovery coordinators can fight on behalf of troops and families will be key in the success of the program.
“They have to be able to bust through the bureaucracy and have the authority to manage these cases,” said Jeremy Chwat, vice president for policy at the Wounded Warrior Project. “This will only be as good as the authority they are given.”
The new posts were one of the top recommendations from the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, put in place after complaints arose about the quality of troops’ care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center earlier this year.
I guess if you are a conservative and you sort of dismiss the sacrifices of the soldiers, then perhaps you have some problem with the way the war has been handled from a fiscal standpoint No?
The largest outlay of cash, 20 billion, are to “unkown” entities for “misc” expenses. Now, I don’t know about you, but if you lost 20 billion dollars, do you think that your board would think you are doing a good job? Or if your number 3 told an senator that yes, some of the money lost ended up in the hands of terrorists along with thousands of lost weapons that kill our soliers?
Or about how the first time in our nation’s history that we have had no bid contracts for work in Iraq and that those contracts went to Bushco contributors?
Or how about the credit crunch and connecting the dots so to speak on Ameriquest predatory lending CEO being Bush’s top contributor in 2004, paving the way for all the others to make millions on the backs of working people and then being rewarded cushy jobs as embassadors?
You aren’t a real conservative if you aren’t outraged at the president, his admininstration and his handling of his job as an elected official.
Tis okay. the next president will have sweeping powers made posssible by Emporer Bush and perhaps then you will want to wake up and pay attention.
tisk tisk
Ah. Laura’s mask slips. She’s not just a concerned, rather dim-witted mom, as she had appeared to be. Nope. She’s got a political ax to grind quote apart from the military families schtick. She’s more clever than comrades X or CW (faint praise I know), and considerably more so than the hapless, cognitively disenfranchised Bonnie. Only now does Laura’s agenda become clear. This has nothing to do with her son in the military, assuming she even has one. That was just a vehicle for offering Democratic Underground-style “analysis.”
X
I am not telling you what I think you don’t know.
I am telling you that I know better, so you don’t bother me any more.
PTSD is up because of two reasons. An increase, for reasons not clear, in Vietnam-era vets, and an expanded definition.
The new numbers don’t mean anything is different. If things are different, the difference remains to be demonstrated.
The expanded services are an indication of expanded concern, not an indication that this war is different and worse.
So take your faux alarm off to some group of gullible where you might make some progress peddling what we both know is nonsense.
Attacking the patriotism of their opponents is a hackneyed, tried & died tactic of American conservatives for decades, therefore the paranoid (another unfortunate conservative trait) drivel about Dems & liberals wanting defeat, & wanting as many troops to die, etc. There’s no reputable person who holds these views, yet the right wingers continue to build these strawmen, knock ’em over effortlessy, then exclaim in self-satisfaction that they’ve actually made a point, silliness. What I usually find is when conservatives encounter real thought & debate from libs they resort to these tactics–I’m not saying some of the lefties don’t have similar tactics, but I’m not writing about them right now. Hitchens has what a lot of late-arriving neo-cons have–an affliction I call “Dennis Miller Syndrome.” 9/11 so scared the beJeus out of them that they’re willing to hand over any civil liberty and approve of any torture tactic, any invasion, for a few seconds of “peace” of mind–losing all common sense in the process (“We had to destroy the village to save it.”). Conservative novelist Tom Clancy has a brilliant essay on this phenomena, Clancy, BTW, was one of a few American conservatives who warned against the Iraq invasion months before it happened. To have reasonable discussions about the war, taxes, elections, etc., you have to agree that we are all Americans holding relatively similar values–neither side is that far off, but the occasional chasm appears, & in those instances the temptation to build strawmen, assign absurdities, question patriotism, and adopt paranoid notions of your fellow American opponent often are too great.
Why anyone takes the neocons that seriously since they’ve been spectacularly wrong about nearly everything is beyond me–Kristol (“What do you want me to say now, Daddy?”) & Perle both have so much egg on their faces, they look like they’ve been in a hatchery explosion. But, many times its easier to hold on to failed views then admit your misjudgement, pride is death to the man.
focus.
Good words about discussions. Problem is, they only go one way.
Only the conservatives fear. The liberals aren’t Stockholmed.
Only conservatives need to enter the uncertainties of war to feel certain.
But why do we need to believe the two sides are anywhere near close?
Have you forgotten that this is the twenty-first century and Clyburn’s comment is NOT going away?
Explain that in terms of both sides being somewhat close. The dems need to lose, they need a catastrophe in Iraq and they are bustin butt to have it.
The NYT opined that a genocide might well follow our withdrawal. But they were okay with that. The issue isn’t that they’re okay with that–we knew it–but that they, in their infinite wisdom foresee a slaughter.
So the dems are working toward a slaughter.
I’m going to ask only one question. Why should conservatives think this is a good idea?
drivel about Dems & liberals wanting defeat
How about the House majority whip, Jim Clyburn (D-SC):
Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”
Washington Post, July 30, 2007
The expanded services are an indication of expanded concern, not an indication that this war is different and worse.
Well, that’s pretty much what I said. Please read more carefully.
Explain that in terms of both sides being somewhat close. The dems need to lose, they need a catastrophe in Iraq and they are bustin butt to have it.
Not only do you people not understand foreign policy, you don’t understand politics. The Democrats don’t need to lose this war. The GOP has already demonstrated quite convincingly that they can’t be trusted with national security or foreign policy, and the eventual outcome in Iraq will not change that. The Dems have already “won” the political dividends of Republicans being so incompetent. The difference is one of principle, something you might appreciate were the right not so careless with the words “treason” and “traitor.”
How about the House majority whip, Jim Clyburn (D-SC)
He’s obviously referring to the Patraeus report, not actual conditions in Iraq. It was anticipated, and rightly so, that Patraeus and Crocker would put the most positive gloss on the situation on the ground in Iraq, and they did. Clyburn is talking about the political implications of such a report on Democrats who either are more inclined to agree with continuing our presence in Iraq, or are too afraid to admit that most Americans still want a draw down in Iraq. He was obviously concerned that such a report would draw those Democrats away from the Democrats who favor withdrawal, thus stifling legislative efforts. So, in other words, you missed the point of what he was talking about. Or, dishonestly spun it as you saw fit.
Amen X, you hit the nail on the head. They can’t be trusted with most things.
Actions speak volumes more than sound bites.
Great post Jim Focus. I like the way you think.
🙂
X
Actually, Petraeus told the truth.
Which is a big problem for the dems, since they needed news of catastrophe. And Petraeus didn’t give it to them.
And that’s a problem for the dems, at least until the primary and they can quit pandering to the nutroots. Presuming the nutroots haven’t actually captured the mainstream dems, which seems likely.
Good book, “Savage Wars of Peace” which, among other things, gives us a brief bio of Smedley Butler. None of his combat duties were of the collection agent type which he lamented about later on. The author suggests that he was either trying to placate his Quaker family or that he had actually come to their view.
In any event, the savage wars of peace, so to speak, were not a racket.
Profiteering? Somebody’s going to make money. What’s new?
Halliburton’s subsidiary, KBR, got its first no-bid under Clinton. There’s a reason for that, it being that few companies can do what they do and do it immediately. If you think lack of competition is a problem, find somebody who’ll do it better and cheaper.
X knows better.
Laura is consumed and doesn’t know better.
Both are wrong.
Utter nonsense, on every level.
Where to start? First, the war is not lost. Quite the contrary.
It’s the Democrats that no one trusts with foreign policy, which is why Hillary Clinton has been tacking right, and why Ned Lamont is still (mercifully) a private citizen.
And even if that weren’t the case, any “dividends” are ephemeral at best. You may recall a little unpleasantness in Vietnam – a Democratic production through and through – didn’t prevent the election of Carter (ptui) or Clinton.
So try again, comrade, that bit of agitprop doesn’t wash.
And what exactly do you understand by the word “treason” and “traitor?” Who would qualify, in your estimation, and why?
The overwhelming majority of Americans are against the war primarily due to its mismanagement & the exposure of this adm.’s breathtaking incompetence–that’s why the GOP is headed for defeat again–Who cares what one Dem Congressman said, it’s not that relevant–you guys need to look at the bigger picture rather than cherry-pickin’ a slim fact here or absurdity there–whoops! You neocons already did that, didn’t cha? What I hear is most war opponents, Dem & GOP, want a controlled withdrawal over a year or 2–hey, if things are going great now, let’s start leaving–of course that’s not what the neocons really want–they are determined to est. a permanent military presence in the ME w/ Iraq the anchor–hence the ongoing building of mega-bases & the bloated Bagdad Embassy. Neocons pushed for another Iraq invasion as early as 1992, 10 years before 9/11. Paul O’Neill states in his book that invading Iraq was a prime agenda item during Bush’s first cabinet meeting, led by Rummy & Cheney, months before 9/11. They mocked what Clinton had told them days earlier as he left the WH, Bin Laden would be their biggest problem at the start, but Saddam was fairly contained. “They were obsessed w/ Saddam,” remembers O’Neill. Clymer’s statement, I admit sounds indelicate, but he was talking more about getting GOP back benchers to abandon the Pres. & vote w/ them on the war. The surge still has not accomplished its main goal: to provide enough stability to facilitate a political solution to the sectarian fighting–still hasn’t happened.
Care to guess why the dems on digging their heels in on funding?
Dems in both houses have been flooded with emails, phone calls and faxes reminding dems to keep the pressure on…from soldiers and military family members!
What? you ask? How can this be? Well, I guess you might start to get it when the military sees a blank check as “more of the same”.
Bout time I say!
Occam, you are okay with millions in waste and call yourself a conservative? You really must be kidding.
Ask a marine what they think of Smedley Butler. More on that after this…
Laura. You’re supposed to capitalize “Marine”. Little things trip you up. Happens all the time.
A marine friend writes:
“But why can’t we win? Why can’t we lose?
We can’t win or lose because this isn’t a game. There are no points to put up on a board. We’re not counting bodies, or acres, or treasure because this isn’t a conquest. It is a military operation with a set of specific mission objectives set forth by the Department of Defense.
To merely utter the words “winning” or “losing” is to exclude the existence of those objectives, and to do that is to hinder the thought process, and to allow oneself to forget that progress in Iraq can be evaluated empirically, and that accomplishment or failure is not simply a matter of faith or perspective. It is a matter of facts.
Let us abandon the use of these words, winning and losing, and demand that our leadership speak in precise terms when referring to the progress of our military in Iraq, and relate their estimates to precise mission objectives and their corresponding operations. In that way, we will better be able to determine for ourselves whether or not we agree.
It’s easy to say we’re winning or losing without clarification. Don’t make it easy. Make it hard. Make them speak explicitly. Make yourself think explicitly. That’s difficult to do without knowing the facts–and that is exactly the point.
From this moment forward, I will never use the words winning or losing when discussing the War in Iraq. I encourage everyone else to do the same.”
jim, we may lose yet. Keep a good thought.
A Marine officer who served in Iraq, resigned his commission after his second tour. The reason? He loved the troops more than the mission.
“His name was Major General Smedley Butler.
In the Marine Corps, there are few names so deeply revered as his. He is one of only two Marines to have ever won two Medals of Honor. That is an impressive feat, and for that his name is recited ad nauseam throughout the barracks’ of recruit training. Every Marine, of every rank and age, on every base, in every clime and place, knows his name.
I’ll guarantee it.
Smedley Butler spent a lifetime in battle. He was reputed to have deeply loved his Marines. He knew more of war, and spent more years in it, than any officer in the Armed Forces today. He died in 1940. At the time, he was the most decorated Marine in United States history. And when he was done fighting, this is what he had to say about war:
“War is a racket! It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was racketeer for Capitalism.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.”
Those are the very answers that we fret. All those military officers who love their country so much, and who love their troops, and who love the ideals of America, and who will freely fight to support and defend its Constitution, all those officers, including myself, and the one I heard recently speak so critically of our government…
all of us struggle to ignore the inconsistencies in our own mental frameworks.
To recognize the answers that Smedley Butler did is to be marginalized and ridiculed as he was. He demonstrated readily that you can never serve enough years, you can never win enough medals, and you can never shed enough blood on behalf of your nation to be permitted to find the truth, and to speak it without your nation turning coldly away.”
Laura, we’ve got Google too.
Do you know this man?
In short, I was racketeer for Capitalism.
Laura’s mask is long gone now. The problem is capitalism. Got it.
Foyer to Hell under the tag, Packing Inferno, on his site.
He also writes a profound tribute to Mora and Gray, the two 82nd Airborne soldiers who died in Iraq. They wrote an oped.
From reading this thread Occam seems to have a great need to assign commie doctrine & anti-Americanism to anybody who disagrees w/ him. Some people are all red, white & blue–until they play Hail to the Chief, and point the cannon at you (sorry John F.) What’s it like to see so many enemies everywhere?
Jim, glad to hear you’re pro-American and anti-communist. We both want the best for the US, and just disagree on policy details then.
Of course I am, as is everyone who I’ve read on here, so far–the canard that Libs are somehow commies and hate America is so, so McCarthy Fifties. GOP and Dems are having a fight over capitalism vs. Communism? Huh?
Great. I don’t think that that is so clear, actually. Growing up in the Bay Area and going to grad school at Berkeley may have colored my views, but consider the sorts of things documented here – routine occurrences in the Bay Area, btw – and see if the America-hating commie characterization is that wide of the mark. (And no, those people are not that unrepresentative, believe me.)
Hah! you’re using Berkely as a baseline! I’ve spent a lot of time out there, mainstream lib. very different from Berkeleyism. I’m sitting in the middle of St. Louis, surrounded by Midwest libs and cons., very diffferent. You’ve probably been psych. damaged, being a conservative & going to grad school there–yikes. I used to teach at Iowa, once known as “Berkely East” then I guest lectured at Berkely off & on for 2 years–very different. A friend of mine, John McWhorter, taught at Berkeley, we laugh about it all the time.
Interestingly enough, I also lived in St. Louis for eight years. And it is very different.
Actually, it was Berkeley that made me into a conservative. I showed up a fashionably lefty student, but within three months developed a powerful aversion to lefty extremist rubbish (including seeing leftist policies actually put into practice in the city).
Cambridge, MA is liberal, but not constitutively so; if push really came to shove, they’d abandon fashion and drop the leftwing rhetoric because it’s largely a pose there, and driven by agitprop. Not so in the Bay Area.
Hey! Where did you live in STL? I’m in Soulard now, not far from McGurk’s–lived in Lafayette Sq a number of yrs, too. Do you happen to know McWhorter?
We lived in Creve Coeur, overlooking Creve Coeur park and the Missouri River.
I don’t know McWhorter, I’m afraid.
You’d like McWhorter, I think–considered a conservative among African-American writers & thinkers, I think he’s actually a break out progressive.
I think I still am progressive, I just don’t view liberal politics as contributing to progress any more.
Laura, last time I looked, the services were volunteer, so just like Sheehans’ son, your offspring went into the Army by choice. So let’s hear from him/her, shall we? I understand your concern and your suffering, I really do. But what does the soldier think? Where does he/she stand?
Oh, and by the way, everybody–ever seen the suicide statistics for police officers and dentists? That dental office, it’s a quagmire, I tell you!
I’m a therapist, like the originator of this site, & I have to say I find it offensive that you conservatives are trying to minimize the psych. issues of war vets & survivors. What do you want, another Walter Reed? Or do you guys want to slash Vets’ funding like Bush did for 7 straight years until Congress stopped it this year.? War is a nasty business with numerous, horrrendous consequences. It’s easy to be glib about other people’s lives. Also, “Dems are hoping for a slaughter in Iraq?” Yeah, I hear that one everyday, you sure busted us on that one. Hey neocon, don’t look now, but there already has been a slaughter in Iraq for the last 4 years. No matter what, these war vets deserve the absolute best care & rehab. BTW that’s a liberal position.
Jim, it’s also a conservative position, Bush notwithstanding.
I think the thing that makes some conservatives dismissive about leftists’ (perhaps as distinct from liberals) posturing on this issue is their newfound regard for the troops, whom they have long vilified as war criminals (e.g., Kerry, MacBeth, Beachamp & Co. )and/or morons (Kerry again). The Left has been quick to think (and say) the worst of the troops, and resistant to thinking well of them. That invites the conclusion that their position arises more from expediency than principle. Apparently they learned from Vietnam that spitting on troops, etc. earned them contempt, not support.
Again, think Berkeley, which sings the lead. The rest of the Left pretty much sings the doo-wops.
All Americans should condemn crimes done by some troops no matter what the war–you can’t condemn Saddam & excuse the same behavior on our side. I was a fed. agent for 6 years & was sworn to turn in any agent that broke the law, period. You implying that you wouldn’t?–every war has atrocities, perps must be prosecuted or we stand for nothing. I find conservatives way too ready to excuse the inexcusable, makes me wonder what your real values are. No one is condemning all troops, just the criminal ones–you should, too.
“We should have gotten out of Iraq, as soon as Saddam was captured. We should have turned the country back over to the Iraqis and demand they work out a political solution. It was a huge mistake. Republicans are no better at nation-building than Democrats.”–Neocon Jon Bolton, today
No one is condemning all troops, just the criminal ones—you should, too.
Absolutely. We should also condemn those making allegations against them that they can’t substantiate. A scurrilous accusation is a bell that can never be unrung.
Well, that noted communist, Jon Bolton, said we should have gotten out of Iraq 4 years ago, I guess this commie neocon must be praying for a slaughter there, too. And I just know he really hates the troops now & wants America to fail in every way, the dirty treasonous defeatist bastard. Let’s all find out where he lives!
Whoa.
Yo, Laura:
….crickets….
I’m just trying to relate to you neocons. One of your own just turned traitor on you.
jimf: I’m just trying to relate to you neocons. One of your own just turned traitor on you.
Nah, he just has a different opinion.
Lemme clear things up for you jimbo — even among you regressives, the problem isn’t with out-and-out traitors so much as with fools, loons, and herds of frightened sheep. After all, even treason takes some guts.
It’s so funny how Sally swoops in to “clear things up” or give people the “big picture”. Sally, you are a character!
Wow, Sally, a typical conservative ad hominen attack, really impressive stuff–are you trying to channel the Coultergeist or what? Your intellect is just so impressive. Why don’t you form a reasoned argument w/ all that smarts–or don’t you have one?
I don’t know, Jon Bolton’s really your guy, but he sure sounded like one of those loony liberals you guys keep braying about–so he must hate the country, too? Am I catching on to the neocon, right wing logic, maybe so.
Yo, jimfocus…
You want to ask Bolton a question today, instead of from January 29? What does he think now, 10 months, a surge, an Anbar awakening and lower violence later?
Please, at least get your idiot comments up to date.
Jon Bolton made these comments last night on Chris Mathews, so I guess there pretty much up-to-date. Who’s the idiot, neoconnie?
BTW, neocons, 2007 is the bloodiest year yet for American forces with the most killed in action since the start of the war. Is this really worth it?
As someone who still thinks the post 9/11 Afghanistan War was one of the more justifiable actions the U.S. has ever taken (regardless of whether it turned out badly or not), the idea of being lumped in as possibly treasonous for my opposition to the Iraq War from the very beginning is rather ironic I think.
I consider myself patriotic and sometimes a supporter of the evil Democratic party, but fortunately not a jingoist rightwing warmonger.
jimf: … are you trying to channel the Coultergeist or what?… Why don’t you form a reasoned argument w/ all that smarts—or don’t you have one?
Always gratifying to see a real troll infestation in a comment thread, isn’t it? It implies that the poor creatures are more than a little anxious about the topic — and that in turn implies that their less obsessive-compulsive but no less morally and intellectually challenged lefty brethren are sweating about it too. As well they should. For a herd that’s predicated so much of their world-view on not just a belief that America will be defeated in Iraq, but a deep hope for that outcome, to suddenly awake to the possibility that these hopes might be frustrated, and that both America and Iraq might actually succeed — well, it explains most of the gnashing of teeth we see here.
While I would like to see most of the left shot for treason & sedition, they are the only ones who speak the “O” word.
But a little frankness here would serve our cause well. We–and I don’t mean it in the vague all-absolving sense, but each and everyone of us–contribute to this country’s absolute dependence on foreign oil and on the whims of the tyrants and loons around the world who possess it.
To build a friendly and sane nation over one of the biggest oil patches around was an elegant solution. It’s yielding mixed results to put it mildly, but that doesn’t change the underlying and unpleasant reality.
We need the damned stuff. There will be blood for oil. Only the precise rate of exchange isn’t yet nailed down.
And please don’ waste your electric bills telling me all about Hailburton and the Saudis & Big Oil. The real culprits are you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you….and me.
Sally offers, “For a herd that’s predicated so much of their world-view on not just a belief that America will be defeated in Iraq, but a deep hope for that outcome, to suddenly awake to the possibility that these hopes might be frustrated, and that both America and Iraq might actually succeed – well, it explains most of the gnashing of teeth we see here.”
I can only speak for my own opinions, I do not subscribe to a group think e-mail list nor do I follow any leftist blog putting out daily talking points. So, speaking for myself, I never doubted the capabilities of the U.S. military to defeat Saddam and his forces. Before the troops went in I thought an invasion of Iraq might prove more troublesome than the cakewalk (ending with happy Iraqis dancing in the streets) that the administration suggested would be the case, but I was reasonably sure that military victory would eventually be ours. That the situation on the ground now seems to have improved due to the surge is good news.
Another way I differ from the mythic Stalinist/Democratic Party/Leftist traitor I’ve seemingly been mistaken for by some of the commentors around here is that I don’t think we should … or can … leave Iraq now without doing more harm than good to our own interests and those of the Iraqi people. It’s that “Pottery Barn” rule again. We should not have gone in in the first place, but since we did and we broke it we’re going to be there for a very long time.
Reviewing the thread, I’m struck by the way the loyalty of administration critics, what constitutes support of our troops, whether or not the surge is reducing casualties and so on seems to dominate the comments. What I do not see are any neocon explanations for how the failure of the Iraqi government to pull themselves together is (or isn’t) the crux of the problem we now face; nor any cogent defense of the mismanagement of the diplomatic side of the equation throughout the entire exercise.
The question is; what does a military victory in Iraq do to help us reduce the threat of radical Islamists and al-Qaeda in specific? This is an area that many believe was a case of the wrong target at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. At the moment, we’re so committed in Iraq that Afghanistan is getting far less attention than it should. We also seem on the verge of a major problem with Pakistan. And propping up Musharaff will hurt more than help in the long term, even if it succeeds in postponing the crisis there for a while longer.
Is the only answer to keep sending the same volunteer military troops (and loyal patriots like the good ol’ boys of Blackwater) to fight the same battles again and again while we drive our SUVs to the mall to make the only contribution President Bush has asked for from American citizens and shop until Wall Street is happy?
The military is broken-Laura
What is broken is Laura’s spirit and esprit de
corps.
that sure is warped thinking. Personally I
would like a triumph for Iraqi resistance just on
principle alone.-Bonnie
I am not sure what Bonnie means by “Iraqi
resistance” nor why it has anything to do with
Democrats strenghtening America by winning
American wars.
After all, I would like to win if I was being
bullied and trampled on in my country by
foreigners.-Bonnie
Well let us compare the response to the text
Bonnie is responding to.
“The Left wants a defeat for the US in Iraq
and a triumph for the Iraqi resistance, in order
that the US will be weakened
worldwide.”-Unknown Author.
So, the logic that the Left wants a defeat for
the US in Iraq is strange because Bonnie would
like to win if she was in the Iraqi resistance
fighting against foreigners? The logic is not
strange at all. The act of holding two
inconsistent beliefs is what is strange.
What Iraqis do in their nation or for their
nation, has nothing to do with what Americans
should do for their nation. Unless you cement an
alliance by blood and battle, of course. But then
you are no longer two nations, you are now
brothers and friends. Something else entirely.
Anyone care to know how many military families
are actually relieved about what the Dems are
proposing?-Laura
The real question is what you are going to do
with the military families that aren’t relieved.
Or do you only represent your own political
faction.
Serious problems with the war in Iraq are well
chronicled
The serious problem is that you are part of the
problem, not the solution.
You have no interest in solving the problems.
People busy with solving problems don’t unleash
their anger on the internet against strangers.
They got better things to do. Do they not, Laura?
I am struck by one that does not seem to
trouble the country’s leadership, even though it
is profoundly corrosive to our common good
Nobody appointed you the decider of what our
common good is.
Power comes from individuals because free will is
recognized by Christianity as well as Greek
philosophers. They definitely aren’t subordinated
to your faction, Laura. That would be the common
good of your faction, not anyone else.
YOU DON’T get to define people-Laura to
Sally
You just defined Bush as being corrosive to your
common good. Obviously that’s an unchallengeable
truth. But maybe it really isn’t.
Who exactly is we?-Laura
Well obviously that is a legitimate complaint
given that Americans are winning and those
seeking to undermine America are losing.
Oh, right, they were primarily from Saudi
Arabia.-Chris White
Chris White’s State Department is the one most in
league with Saudi Arabia. In fact, Saudi Arabian
money bought most of the State Department
already. That is why Dick Clark allowed the
Saudis authorization to leave the country after
9/11 without Presidential authority. They know
from which country their bread is buttered.
So it appears that instead of draining the
swamp, we instead poured more water into it and
added some more mosquitoes for good
measure.-Xan
X, you would never have tried to drain the swamp
in the first place. So do you believe you are the
critic Theodore Roosevelt mentioned? The one that
likes to crone on about the failures of others
because you are too afraid of defeat to try
anything risky at all.
It bears reminding that Fascists are on the
right of the political dial, not the left.-X
That myth again. There’s something called the
Triangle of Death geometry between National
Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and Communism.
CAIR+ACLU+Communist parties ala Castro and Hugo.
Although who knows what Hugo is. Some kind of
bastardo socialist, communist, and fascist
hybrid.
The answer is obvious: diplomacy.-Jack
Schwager
Okay, Jack. Diplomacy solved the question of
slavery, fascism, and American independence. We
get it. Not true, but we get it.
International diplomacy, sanction, and
negotiations are the highest authority in the
Leftist pantheon of government.
Given that, why do Republicans always root for
American diplomacy to fail?
As MacArthur and Truman, a Democrat and founder
of the United Nations, would have told you,
diplomacy only comes after Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
My, my, they’re certainly out in force
today.-Harry
A reconnaisance in force.
My father was in the military, and he would
have been ashamed if I had whined and moaned like
you do.-Promethea
That might be because your father believed in a
unified unit and esprit de corps. He probably did
not believe that you fixed a broken unit by
setting one faction against the other. That’d be
called a war, not an army.
It matters not to me if you are convinced or
not.
It is very simple in a way. What matters to Laura
is hating and expressing her hate to as many
people as she can reach. Doing something
constructive with her time, such as what the
milblogs do, is less important.
Of course, everyone is free to do what they wish
to do within limits, conscience, and the law, but
Laura is, after all, the one that claims to place
a high importance on solving the problem of a
broken military. So obviously arguing here is
helping her do that. Somehow.
you won’t find that in a neo con blog or Rush,
HANNITY et al, as this is news that they don’t
want you to know.-Laura
While blackfive cannot be really called a neo-con
blog, they are classical liberal blogs that
happen to be about the military.
Those for democracy and liberty understand that
security can only come from military force, and
that can only come from the US military. Since
you are so busy trying to bring the broken
military to everybody’s attention, I suppose you
have little interest in reading about stories
from motivated military units.
The military is broken. In part because of a
policy by Bush and others to make it as pain free
and sacrifice free as possible.-Laura
Is that what you wrote in the letter to the
families that lost loved ones in the various
military training operations using helicopter
transportation and live fire ammunition?
Must have been quite a letter. It must have been
a great enlightenment to know that people died
because the military training was just too
sacrifice and pain free.
But if we need to win in the aggregate, we
have to fight someplace. Why not
Iraq?-Richard
Because the UN did not approve and nor did the
international community. This is obvious,
Richard.
Were we to dump Iraq and increase the effort
in Afghanistan, there would be a neck-snapping
one-eighty about how awful it is to beat up on
those poor farmers who …..-R
Remember the media operation designed to kick out
a Marine Recon Force unit, that just arrived in
Afghanistan, for “death blossoming” on civilians?
Kinda like what they said the Blackwater members
did. Coincidentally, that is also similar to what
they accused the Haditha Marines of. And that is
also what they accused the Marines in Fallujah 2
of doing when they shot that dead guy faking.
More attention put on Afghanistan simply means
more media attention. And that means more lies
designed to dismantle US military units.
When it becomes politically useful…now
everybody’s an expert.
Now it is a huge military breaking problem,
Richard. Except it is very likely that if you
asked Laura how to prevent and treat PTSD, she
would be unwilling to discuss the potential
treatments and the treatments the military has
already implemented. That would be, how shall I
put it, not part of the narrative.
Well, that’s pretty much what I said. Please
read more carefully.-X
Get with the program already.
Ask a marine what they think of Smedley
Butler
Why would I ask a foreign soldier serving on a
naval ship about Smedley Butler, Laura.
so, so McCarthy Fifties-jim
McCarthy was a Senator. Also, the Democrats
controlled the House and the Senate. So if there
was any McCarthy Fifties, it would have been
because the Democrats were helping him along.
I’m just trying to relate to you neocons. One of your own just turned traitor on you.
A neo-con is somebody that wasn’t part of the conservative coalition and joined it after 9/11. Not phony soldiers. Not ideologues with an axe to grind. It doesn’t really matter if they want to leave, since it is a good riddance. Their contribution as individuals would be about on par with “neo-con” Fukuyama’s. End of HIstory and all that.
As for John Bolton, there is no link and no transcript. So it is nothing but unfounded opinion from Jim.
It is not as if jim agrees with John Bolton on the beliefs that Bolton has. He only uses Bolton because he thinks Bolton is an effective psychological weapon against “neo-cons”. These things happen in war.
CW: The question is; what does a military victory in Iraq do to help us reduce the threat of radical Islamists and al-Qaeda in specific?
Well, (a) it kills a lot of them, and (b) it discredits them as a whole amongst their natural recruitment population. But until you can learn to distinguish between collateral damage and terrorism, CW, you might want to leave these kinds of hard questions to others. E.g., Tim Montgomerie in the London Times:
what does a military victory in Iraq do to help us reduce the threat of radical Islamists and al-Qaeda in specific-C
One victory alone would do nothing. Neither Afghanistan’s OEF nor Iraq’s OIF nor Gulf War 1 did much of anything to undermine the Islamic jihad on a long term basis.
The amount of military force and killing required to reduce the Islamic Jihad’s power base exceeds any conceivable amount that international diplomacy, State Department diplomats, and politicians would approve of.
This is why the military is always better at fighting wars than diplomats, politicians, or UN bureacrats.
It is a belief not shared by the internationalists.
This is an area that many believe was a case of the wrong target at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
Obviously, that is due to the fact that they have different philosophical foundations, Chris.
At the moment, we’re so committed in Iraq that Afghanistan is getting far less attention than it should.-Chris
Less media attention in Afghanistan is always a good thing. I really don’t think your faction, Chris, has the will or the resources to conduct a counter-insurgency with the media present in force.
The way you define “attention”, Chris, is also predicated upon your philosophical assumptions. Given that they are diametrically different from classical liberals and the Jacksonian war party, it really doesn’t matter how much attention you think we should give to Afghanistan. It will always be the wrong kind of attention in the end. After all, if you could solve such problems, then your philosophy would be vindicated. But how likely is that?
And propping up Musharaff will hurt more than help in the long term
There goes that philosophy again, Chris. You were for ousting the Shah by more moderate reforms in Iran. Reforms that allowed the Ayatollah to live, his subordinates free from jail, and the local terrorized by instability into anti-Shah sentiments. Sure, you didn’t see your methods as ousting the Shah. You just saw methods you disagreed with as “propping up the Shah”. Like Bush is supposedly propping up Musharaff. Same philosophy, same results.
By the way, Bolton isn’t and never was a neocon, for what it’s worth. He’s more of a paleocon (see this for definition of neocon). As such, he has a consistently typical paleocon attitude towards the Iraq War: get in to depose Saddam, who constituted a threat to his people and to the region and our interests there, and then get out as soon as possible. His statement that Republicans are no better at nation-building then Democrats expresses the paleocon attitude that nation-building is not an activity in which we should be involved.
The amount of military force and killing required to reduce the Islamic Jihad’s power base exceeds any conceivable amount that international diplomacy, State Department diplomats, and politicians would approve of.
This is why the military is always better at fighting wars than diplomats, politicians, or UN bureacrats.
It is a belief not shared by the internationalists. – Y
Can I infer from this that you believe we should use the military and killing of “Islamic jihad’s power base” to rid the world of this threat? If that is the case, are you proposing that all followers of the Islamic faith must be exterminated in order to succeed? If not, which Islamic nations and/or populations do you think should be exterminated? How does declaring war on a technique (terror) or a religious group (fundamentalist Islamists) have any clear path to victory?
You were for ousting the Shah by more moderate reforms in Iran. Reforms that allowed the Ayatollah to live, his subordinates free from jail, and the local terrorized by instability into anti-Shah sentiments. Sure, you didn’t see your methods as ousting the Shah. You just saw methods you disagreed with as “propping up the Shah”. Like Bush is supposedly propping up Musharaff. Same philosophy, same results. – Y
My argument remains that we supported the Shah’s regime for too long and failed to reign in his repression until it was far too late with disastrous results. Seemingly, your argument is that we should have continued to support him and counsel him to step up his repression, perhaps even encouraging him to slaughter the Ayatollah and his followers … along, presumably, with the student democracy movement and anyone else who was opposed to being ruled by a monarch restored to the throne by the west to insure the free flow of oil from Iran. Personally, I remain skeptical that such an approach would have had a better outcome.
With Pakistan the Bush administration waffles and seems to tacitly accept Musharaff’s crack down on all opposition, which includes virtually the entire judiciary (despite the fact that most members of the court system were appointed under his regime), and the press and the … well, just about everyone except a small core within the military and those in his inner circle. I think this is an example of what happened in Iran and I say, “same philosophy, same results.”
If we fail to help Pakistan to make a peaceful transition to democracy (as originally promised by Musharaff’s military coup) we increase the likelihood of radical Islamic factions taking over down the road. And Pakistan is a nuclear nation.
But maybe Y and others would like the chance to finally drop some nukes on somebody and cheer about how that proves we’re the greatest.
Chris, don’t put words in people’s mouths. It’s meretricious.
I can only speak for my own opinions, I do not subscribe to a group think e-mail list nor do I follow any leftist blog putting out daily talking points.
Anti-war talking points are not the exclusive province of lefty blogs. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, LAT, NYT, TNR, etc. — known collectively as the MSM – provide all the talking points a good pro-leftist needs. Indeed, the MSM, with its unrelenting lefty-biased propaganda, is the main engine for most anti-war opinion.
What I do not see are any neocon explanations for how the failure of the Iraqi government to pull themselves together is (or isn’t) the crux of the problem we now face; nor any cogent defense of the mismanagement of the diplomatic side of the equation throughout the entire exercise.
Explanation #1: It takes time to build a national government from scratch — especially when Iran and Syria are doing all they can, outside of open warfare, to foment conflict in Iraq. The commentor might also try reading up on the early history of the United States to find out why new governments are not easy to build.
Explanation #2: Diplomacy was tried ad infinitum and had zero impact on Saddam. After losing the first Gulf War Saddam spent over 10 years happily corrupting the UN and never complied with a single post-war agreement. There comes a point at which diplomacy is pointless.
The question is; what does a military victory in Iraq do to help us reduce the threat of radical Islamists and al-Qaeda in specific? This is an area that many believe was a case of the wrong target at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
If the commentor doesn’t see on his own how having a stable Iraq friendly to the US in the middle of the Middle East would be troublesome to Islamists and al-Qaeda then no amount of explanation of such an obvious concept would help him.
At the moment, we’re so committed in Iraq that Afghanistan is getting far less attention than it should. We also seem on the verge of a major problem with Pakistan. And propping up Musharaff will hurt more than help in the long term, even if it succeeds in postponing the crisis there for a while longer.
Gee, it would be really nice if the War on Terror had only one front. Unfortunately real life rarely comes in such neat packages. As for “propping up” Musharraf — who would the commentor have the US support in Pakistan — the Islamists?
Is the only answer to keep sending the same volunteer military troops (and loyal patriots like the good ol’ boys of Blackwater) to fight the same battles again and again while we drive our SUVs to the mall to make the only contribution President Bush has asked for from American citizens and shop until Wall Street is happy?
Actually, the “volunteer military troops” seem to be kicking ass over there, if the commentor would care to look. I read somewhere that reenlistment is strong among US forces in Iraq and that military recruitment in the US is OK too. Bless the warriors.
The commentor seems very troubled by the lack of the necessity of wartime sacrifice in the US. Anti-war types dream wistfully of a military draft, shortages, rationing and other hardships, a la WW2. It bothers them mightily that so little public sacrifice is required to counter the Islamists.
I’m mystified by the commentor’s reference to the “same battles.” Perhaps a clarification will come shortly. However, I do understand the commentor’s dislike of the Blackwater folks — it would be rare indeed if an anti-war type like the commentor had much affection for an organization like Blackwater, comprised of US military veterans as it is.
The commentor seems also to dislike Wall Street — but he is NOT a “Stalinist” or “Leftist,” oh no, not he, he merely parrots their slogans as often as he can.
So let’s hear from him/her, shall we? I understand your concern and your suffering, I really do. But what does the soldier think? Where does he/she stand?
In other words, know your place Laura. Don’t you know that only the opinion of “the troops” matter? That is, if they agree with the war. If not…well, then it’s just sour grapes. As for the families of those who serve…well, they’re opinions only matter if you agree with the pro-war crowd. If they dare to disagree…well, then you get the Sheehan treatment.
And that’s a problem for the dems, at least until the primary and they can quit pandering to the nutroots. Presuming the nutroots haven’t actually captured the mainstream dems, which seems likely.
Of course, that a majority of Americans agree with the “nutroots” that we should start withdrawal from Iraq is completely irrelevant.
It’s the Democrats that no one trusts with foreign policy, which is why Hillary Clinton has been tacking right, and why Ned Lamont is still (mercifully) a private citizen.
Check the polls. The Republican advantage on national security and foreign policy is gone.
Lemme clear things up for you jimbo – even among you regressives, the problem isn’t with out-and-out traitors so much as with fools, loons, and herds of frightened sheep.
Hmmm…herds of frightened sheep. You mean, like the kind that think we should invade a country in response to a terrorist attack that said country had nothing to do with?
The only gnashing of teeth & herd behavior-thinking I see on this thread is from the neocons & Bush Adm defenders, who take more the theoconservative view that anything the adm. does in Iraq is right, justifiable & succeeding–no evidence is needed for this position, just faith. BTW, apparently some of my fellow Americans are very upset w/ my quoting of Bolton yesterday–Uh, in fact, they think I pulled it out of my…never mind. Bolton made the remarks on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews, last night, in the second half hour of the show, when asked what he’d learned from the Iraqi situation–to expand his remarks, he said w/ 20/20 hindsight we should have forced a political solution shortly after capturing Saddam & then withdrawn, implied Bremer made a huge mistake disbanding the army (he’s always hated Bremer) & that really has been his view all along, making him at odds w/ Colin Powell in particularly. Money quote “Republicans are no better @ nation building than Democrats.” Also, Bush-Cheney defined “winning” prior to the surge that it would provide enough stability to force this political solution that Bolton talks about. That hasn’t happened yet, but I hope it does, if that truly means success–I suspect the neocons really want more than that. It’s amusing that I see so much handwringing by the neocons here about “winning & losing.” I thought you guys said we already won in a cakewalk 4 1/2 years ago: “Mission Accomplished, ” aircraft carrier Lincoln, flightsuit. A faith-based victory? Again I’m sorry that some of my fellow Americans are sorry I quoted Bolton, now is he a traitor, giving comfort to the enemy–have I served on a jury w/ some of you–deja vu…
X: Hmmm…herds of frightened sheep. You mean, like the kind that think we should invade a country in response to a terrorist attack that said country had nothing to do with?
Hmmm… Those don’t sound like sheep, son. And I’m afraid your attempt to encapsulate the Iraq invasion doesn’t sound any better than your barnyard knowledge.
This “terrorist attack that said country had nothing to do with”, though, is an old canard that might be worth batting down, regardless of the fools, loons, and sheep-like followers on the left that repeat it mindlessly. The problem with the notion of “country” in this case is that it isn’t adequate for the new era of asymmetric warfare that 9/11 ushered in. First, because the warriors in this struggle pay little attention to national boundaries, and especially little in the porous borders of the Middle East — the reason that the national origin of the particular butchers who perpetrated the 9/11 massacre is irrelevant. Second, because the struggle isn’t with a country but rather with an ideology that pervades the Islamic Ummah (though it doesn’t, yet, dominate it). So, in particular, the problem wasn’t with the country of Iraq but rather with the regime of Saddam Hussein — a problem for us, for his region, and for his people, I might add. Third, the problem wasn’t and isn’t with one particular group of suicide killers, nor with just al Qaeda as merely the latest in a string of Islamist terrorist groups that pop with with various leaders and with various admixtures of secular and religious fascism — the problem is with the multifaceted, but always bloody and totalitarian Islamism in general. For this reason, the problem lies in the Middle East and some surrounding areas as a whole, and with the particular state regimes that give active or passive support to this vicious ideology. The Saddam regime was simply one of those, but it was one in the very heart of the benighted region, as well as the one that was most actively hostile, the most tyrannical, and had demonstrated the most willingness to use WMDs in the past.
I understand, of course, that this is wasted on the likes of X, who have to check the polls before they know what they can allow themselves to think– it’s just to make the point for those capable an independent thought.
My opposition to the Iraq War is simply that it was the wrong war to fight, we should have concentrated on Afghan. & getting Bin Laden. Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11, Bin Laden hated Saddam, saw him as a secularist. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, raised in that country & radicalized by the Mullahs there who are supported & funded by the Sauds, who also support the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (who also are buddy-buddy w/ the Bushs’ for decades). Based on these facts maybe we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, hey–there’s another invasion idea for you guys, or do you like Iran as the better target?
Wow, Sally, I bet you look like a pretzel after that last post. Are you & Billy Kristol talking, lucky you. Your logic about invading Iraq sounds like you took it from the Weekly Standard’s article trying to make the connection of Iraq-al Qaeda, really tortuous stuff. Even Krauthammer has conceded w/i the last week that Pakistan is the most dangerous country to US interests in the ME–they already have about 100 nukes. BTW, Sally, conservatives loved Sadam at the time he was using WMD’s against the Kurds & in the Iran war. Things didn’t change until Saddam took over Kuwait & set his sights on our–excuse me–the Saudi oil fields. We loved the guy when he was practicing genocide & actually had WMD’s.
Careful, jimbo, you’ll just hurt your head trying to follow strategic or even just logical considerations. Get some sleep — you’re starting to babble.
Again, another juvenile, ad hominen attack from a conservative who can’t answer–only attack, so that’s your fast ball Sally? If you are going to engage in put downs could you try not to be so clumsy about it?
No, no, jimmy, I’m concerned for you. Don’t be paranoid.
(By the way, I’m not a conservative.)
The neocons had targeted Iraq for years prior to 9/11–this is well documented in their writing from 1992 on (Kristol, Perle, Podheretz, Bolton, Libby etc.). Their overall goal was to use the US’s overwhelming power following the fall of the Soviets to dictate a policy forming the “American Century” of dominance. One key objective is to democratize the ME, help install regimes friendly to US interests (oil) and tolerant of Israel. Nation-building was the priority, almost on a Wilsonian level. As Bolton admitted, last night, an attempt at nation-building that was pure folly. What do you do when these new democrats vote in the wrong people?
Yeah, I feel the love. Sally, condescension never impresses, state your argument–if my posts irritate you–and they clearly do–then just move on. Posing that you are intellectually superior just doesn’t work–prove it.
Well, maybe you just can’t help being paranoid — not your fault. Before the dread “neocons” there were the Jews, weren’t there? And if not the Joos, there’s the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Masons, the Rosicrucians, etc.
Re: your particular points:
Democratizing the ME, and indeed the world, is one of those generally Good Things that you would think even a decent leftist — and they do exist, however threatened — would be in favor of. There already are an ample number of regimes friendly to US oil interests in the ME, as was Saddam’s, as was and is Iran’s — this is because the US, and the world’s, oil interests coincide with the interests of both the people and the regimes in the ME. And, as the only democracy in the ME, all self-respecting democracies have or should have an interest in ensuring that the various ME tyrannies are at least tolerant of Israel.
So you see, for anyone not actively suffering from paranoia, conspiracy theories are just superfluous explanations. They colorful, and often entertaining, but you really don’t need them.
Sally, surprise me, and write a post w/o one condescending personal attack, betcha can’t do it. Conspiracy theories? Trilaterals? Masons? Clumsy, very clumsy. BTW, I’m a big supporter of Israel. Also, nothing paranoid about pointing out the neocon agenda & how they, as key members of the Bush adm., actively sought to implement these policies–this is well-documented in numerous books, Thomas Rick’s Fiasco probably the best researched. The abject failure of these policies is also well documented. Conservatives Andrew Sullivan, Robert Novak & Pat Buchanan have written extensively on this, too. Another thing Bolton said last night was very interesting–he now favors military intervention in Iran, but feels we blew a chance for peaceful regime change there the last 4 years–a real shot at Bush-Rice for. policy. Democratizing the world, in my view, is a hopeless Wilsonian pipe dream (Bolton would agree). What we want to do is try to influence the world & construct policy that serves the interests of this country, real politic, if you will. Many neocons lost sight of this in the Bush Adm.
This is Jim vs Sally. It has nothing to do with Bush or neo-cons.
Can I infer from this that you believe we should use the military and killing of “Islamic jihad’s power base” to rid the world of this threat?-Chris
Undermining, not killing. You got me confused with Sally’s response. Different philosophies there also.
Killing would be nice, but it is easier to undermine than to engage enemy forces directly in combat.
Unfortunately for some factions, you can’t undermine the Islamic Jihad network of intimidation and mafia style politics without killing people. If you don’t kill folks and the Islamic Jihad does, then all the locals will ally themselves with the killers. That would not be optimal and most probably a waste of time and resources for us.
along, presumably, with the student democracy movement and anyone else who was opposed
As you can see in Iran right now, without the armed forces represented by the Ayatollah and Islamic Jihad revolutionaries, the Shah wouldn’t have had much of a problem securing the country. He didn’t need to go to repressive measures, so long as the Ayatollah and his hardcore faction was neutralized, permanently. How well are the student reformers doing against the secret police of Iran and their revolutionary guard?
About as well as they would have done against the Shah, except the Shah would have delivered on economic reform, elections, and civil rights. The Mullahs don’t even plan on anything like that.
Personally, I remain skeptical that such an approach would have had a better outcome.
You just don’t believe that violence when used, simply makes any student democracy movements useless in the great scheme of things. You still think that wing of the revolution had enough power and leverage to affect the trend in the country. Not against the Ayatollah then and not against his descendants now. Every local force requires advanced military training, weapons, and leadership, whether foreign derived or local like Massoud in Afghanistan. Without the core cadre for a guerrilla fighting force, there is no way you can organize any movement for liberty or reform.
Any attempt will fail, because extremists will hijack it. Or just get rid of their competitors, the more moderate factions.
which includes virtually the entire judiciary
As a crackdown, house arrest is pretty mild and humanitarian. There is no reason for Musharaff to do violence against the judges, it is just that the judges allow violence to be done by others that is the core problem. It is, of course, only a temporary solution.
(despite the fact that most members of the court system were appointed under his regime)-Chris
Did you expect Musharaff to staff the court with cronies? So which is it. Did Musharaff honestly appoint people with independent minds, a point for Musharaff, or was the court already broken to begin with? Either way, it undermines your portrayal of Musharaff and his actions against the judges in question.
If we fail to help Pakistan to make a peaceful transition to democracy
You can’t even do a peaceful transition to democracy in Iraq. What makes you think what didn’t work there and everywhere else, is going to work in Pakistan? Especially without the bulwark of US military expertise and wisdom. They are close, but not in Pakistan at the moment. If you wish to give this problem to the US military to solve, as they have solved many diplomatic, cultural, and terrorist problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, then I would agree. But I find it unlikely you would trust the military to do what you believe the State Department and the international community is better armed to do.
This is just Y vs. Chris. It has nothing to do with Bush or neo-cons.
My opposition to the Iraq War is simply that it was the wrong war to fight, we should have concentrated on Afghan. & getting Bin Laden. Saddam had nothing to do w/ 9/11, Bin Laden hated Saddam, saw him as a secularist. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, raised in that country & radicalized by the Mullahs there who are supported & funded by the Sauds, who also support the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (who also are buddy-buddy w/ the Bushs’ for decades). Based on these facts maybe we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, hey—there’s another invasion idea for you guys, or do you like Iran as the better target?
Much has been made of the Saudi origins of the 9/11 hijackers by the anti-war folks. It goes like this: Saddam had nothing to do(as far as is known) with 9/11; the aircraft were hijacked by mostly Saudi nationals, ergo Saddam should have been left strictly alone. One supposes that they must think that the US Congress at the time of Pearl Harbor was wrong to declare war on Germany and Italy. After all, there were no German or Italian pilots over Hawaii on that fateful morning.
BTW, Sally, conservatives loved Sadam at the time he was using WMD’s against the Kurds & in the Iran war. Things didn’t change until Saddam took over Kuwait & set his sights on our—excuse me—the Saudi oil fields. We loved the guy when he was practicing genocide & actually had WMD’s.
Hyperbole abounds. Yes, Saddam DID have WMD and he murdered a bunch of Kurds with it. One wonders what the commentor thinks happened to Saddam’s WMD that was used to murder the Kurds? Did it just disappear? Saddam never accounted for it, as was agreed to by him after his first defeat by Bush senior.
There were facilities, equipment, documents and stockpiles. Where did it all go? We found some of it — a nuclear centrifuge was dug up in one of Saddam’s scientist’s BACKYARD. And some documents WERE recovered, as the NYT, in an effort to discredit Bush, revealed. Where’s the rest? Buried in someone else’s backyard no doubt, but if one is determined NOT TO SEE, no amount of evidence will suffice.
Furthermore, the anti-war folks can’t seem to understand the concept of shifting alliances, an ordinary and normal part of ANY great world power’s foreign policy history. And they forget that for the US to have had ANY allies in the Middle East a despot would necessarily HAVE to have been supported – since before Afghanistan and Iraq(with only the exception of Turkey and Israel), ALL Middle Eastern countries were ruled by despots with murder on their hands. In the past, if you dealt with anyone in the ME you were dealing with an unsavory despot. That’s exactly one of the doleful paradigms that Bush is trying to change for the better.
The neocons had targeted Iraq for years prior to 9/11—this is well documented in their writing from 1992 on (Kristol, Perle, Podheretz, Bolton, Libby etc.) … One key objective is to democratize the ME, help install regimes friendly to US interests (oil) and tolerant of Israel. Nation-building was the priority, almost on a Wilsonian level. As Bolton admitted, last night, an attempt at nation-building that was pure folly. What do you do when these new democrats vote in the wrong people?
Yes, it’s true that many foreign policy writers saw Iraq as a problem early-on and events have since proved the worth of their thinking. The writer is evidently scandalized by a policy “to democratize the ME, help install regimes friendly to US interests (oil) and tolerant of Israel.” Heaven forbid that the ME should become more democratic, more friendly to the US or allow Israel to exist. THAT would just be TERRIBLE to the anti-war folks. I’ll admit I’m stumped by the reference to “new democrats” and “wrong people.”
Grackle, where do I begin. That Pearl Harbor analogy, where did that come from? BTW We declared war on Japan, then the other axis powers declared war on us. You seriously believe there is a direct connection between 9/11 & Iraq? Even Bush won’t go there. Again, I’m very pro-Israel. the point is the neo-cons saw them as the only democracy, so why not force democracy in the region?–a catastrophic policy if there ever was one, & Bolton says the same thing. Democracies build from the grassroots. Nation building is pure folly. New democrats–newly voting constituencies–we are surprised when they don’t vote pro-American (Iraq, Palestine, etc.)–don’t worry, most of the adm. neocons were stumped by this concept, too. Where did the Wmd’s go. Of all people, conservative novelist Tom Clancy has written about this, & tried to make the case w/ other conservatives prior to the war, that maintaining chemical weapons on the scale that Saddam claimed was not feasible, given his greatly weakened situation. These weapons decay very fast. Clancy thought Saddam was bluffing, & he was right. Also, the inspection regimen actually worked. Novak & Buchanan made the same points, there simply wasn’t any 3rd party proof of the WMD existence, & the ginning up of the nuclear threat was laughable on its face. Joe Conason completely exposed that BS 2 months before the war. My other point, again, is that the neocons in the Adm. were intent on invading Iraq before 9/11, they used it as an excuse–you’ve been had–we went after the wrong people, should have gotten the core of al Qaeda in Afghan.–most conservatives would agree w/ that now. The region is far more unstable than it was 6 years ago, the policy is not working.
Grackle, where do I begin. That Pearl Harbor analogy, where did that come from? BTW We declared war on Japan, then the other axis powers declared war on us.
It came from the heart, jimfocus. Let me my clarify my admittedly muddled point in a more direct manner: The nationality of the terrorists of 9/11 has little to do with anything unless you believe it’s proof that the Saudi government knowingly participated in 9/11. It seems that anti-war commentors believe that the fact that there is no evidence that Saddam had a direct connection with 9/11 is all the grounds needed to oppose the current war in Iraq. Saddam was destroyed for many reasons but not because Bush believed Saddam had any direct connection with 9/11.
You seriously believe there is a direct connection between 9/11 & Iraq?
No, and I’m puzzled as to why the commentor would think so.
Again, I’m very pro-Israel.
So … the commentor is NOT against ALL of those neocon objectives, namely to democratize the ME, help install regimes friendly to US interests (oil) and [be]tolerant of Israel. It seems that Kristol, Perle, Podheretz, Bolton, Libby etc meet with his approval on at least one objective — to foster tolerance of Israel’s existence by its belligerent and provocative neighbors. Perhaps he will embrace the other two, in time.
… the point is the neo-cons saw them[Israel?] as the only democracy, so why not force democracy in the region?—a catastrophic policy if there ever was one …
If jimfocus was Commander in Chief: Iraq is defeated in war. The country has no government and society is in chaos. A government has to be created. Let’s see … what kind of government shall we create? Communist? Islamic theocracy? Secular dictatorship? Monarchy? WHAT! A democratic government, you say! No, never .. anything but the dreaded democracy! Omigod, that would even mean open elections! We can’t have THAT!
Nation building is pure folly.
Post-WW2 occupation of Japan, Germany and Italy — like Iraq, all defeated countries: Nation-building, certainly, but FOLLY?
The [ME?]region is far more unstable than it was 6 years ago, the policy is not working.
No Taliban-sponsored al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, a government there that is friendly toward the US. No more murderous Saddam. A government in Iraq that is friendly toward the US. A groundswell among the tribes and factions of Iraq to participate and assist in fighting the insurgents and in building a new government. Libya voluntarily turning in its WMD materials and equipment. But … “the policy is not working.”
Nice post grackle, I actually agree with a lot of your points. The point about nation-building is reasonable, if the situations were comparable. Germany and Japan were destroyed and built back up, MacArthur did nearly everything the opposite of what the hapless Bremer did in Iraq, used the emporer, and maintained many Japanese cultural icons. Germany & Japan were mostly homogenous cultures going back millenia. Iraq is a made-up country carved out of the old Ottoman Empire with 3 distinct cultures and numerous subcultures, not to mention the tribalism. The lethal cultural pathologies go back centuries, not a great candidate for American style, or Western democracy (allegedly, Bush did not know about the 3 factions until 3 weeks before the invasion). I disagree with your rosy assessment of the policy, Saddam was contained and actually kept Iran in check, that’s gone, the Shia are a rising threat in the region, especially to the Saudis who are scared shi*less. Afghanistan is blowing up again, the Taliban is on the rise, and the al Qaeda brains operate freely in the east, thanks to Pakistan’s duplicity. You know, I’m like a lot of libs, not nearly as doctrinaire as some of you on the right seem to think we are.
“Distrust all orthodoxies.”–Allan Bloom
Thanks, jimfocus. There are probably other points we could agree on. I voted for Clinton and Gore and adhere to the liberal side on most social issues. Foreign policy is the sticking point for me — surpassing all other issues. The Democrats, liberals and the left took the wrong turn on foreign policy somewhere along the line. I would probably come back to the fold if they ever get behind the war. I will debate as vigorously as I know how but I’ve learned not to question the opposition’s sincerity.
Going to your point about comparable situations: It seems likely to me that comparable situations vis a vis past defeated nations and the present conflicts are useless to debate about because perfectly comparable situations rarely exist in the real world. I’d rather stick to the general principle of assisting defeated nations to get back up on their feet.
If Iraq ends up as a democracy, it will be its own version of democracy — just as Turkey and Israel have their own versions. No doubt there have been blunders by the US in Iraq, especially in the beginning. No doubt there will be more. There were also catastrophic blunders by the US during WW2 but I’m sure glad the US did not waver and the Axis powers did not win.
As for Afghanistan blowing up, Taliban rising, al Qaeda operating freely and Pakistan’s “duplicity,” only time will tell. Perhaps they will prevail, perhaps the US and our allies will — no one really knows. The only advantage the West has over the Islamists is technology … if we ever lose that advantage things could get very dicey.
jimf: … write a post w/o one condescending personal attack, betcha can’t do it.
Sorry jim, but that just sounds whiny from a guy who’s earlier posts were filled with condescending personal attacks — don’t engage in them if you don’t like receiving them.
That said, I’m willing to be substantive when you are:
First, conspiracy theories of all sorts are notoriously “well-documented in numerous books” — that’s no guarantee they aren’t ridiculous, and their “documentation” is no substitute for a critical intelligence able to bring skepticism to bear even — or maybe especially — upon theories that flatter one’s existing biases or preconceptions.
Second, without getting involved in conspiracies, like-minded people have always and will always get together to discuss how they might implement their policies. Occasionally, such people are able to influence political administrations — e.g., Roosevelt’s New Dealers, Kennedy’s “New Frontier” technocrats, Reagan’s Supply-siders, and Bush’s Neoconservatives. None of those instances involved the sort of “conspiracy” commonly alleged about those influencing this administration.
Third, you need to learn something about foreign policy schools — neoconservatism is a third major alternative to both 19th century realism and Wilsonian internationalism. The latter sought to build a world order from the top down, starting with global institutions and trying to establish at least the appearance of an international justice system — but it’s only ever succeeded in constructing facades, behind the protection of which have festered some of the worst and most dangerous regimes in recent history. And “realism” has long had an unfortunate history of amoral, even cynical, international manipulation and scheming to further short term “national interests” that invariably blew up in the long term. Neoconservatism, on the other hand, recognizes that liberal democracy in a broad sense is to everyone’s long-term advantage, since it encourages a sense of responsibility for their fate in a people. And it seeks to encourage and support such democracy through substantial institutions built from the ground up. It’s necessarily a slow and sometimes erratic process that requires patience and commitment, and the invasion of Iraq is the exception, not the example, which is why it was admittedly always a risk. But democracy, even there, is nevertheless a risk worth taking, and I think the willingness of so many Iraqis to stake their lives on it indicates that they think so too.
And “realism” has long had an unfortunate history of amoral, even cynical, international manipulation and scheming to further short term “national interests” that invariably blew up in the long term.
Neoconservatism aspires to all of the traits you grant it. In practice though, it could be described by the sentences above. And incidentally, the Iraqis didn’t exactly get a choice about staking their lives on it.
X:And incidentally, the Iraqis didn’t exactly get a choice about staking their lives on it.
Manifestly untrue — none of them was forced to vote, and all of them were threatened if they voted, but they nonetheless voted, in numbers that would shame most existing democracies.
Neoconservatism in practice is more debatable — but, if you don’t like it, you should at least support the aspirations, and hold it to those.
Hey Sally, what attacks did I make? Many of those supporting the war and the neocon view on here have heaped insult and scorn on their opponents–anyone does that to me, I’ll be respectful, but I’ll give it right back. Like the guy who called me an idiot for posting Bolton, insisting that it was 10 months old when it was that night–I asked him Who’s the idiot?, he asked for it. Otherwise I try to be civil, humourous and a bit sarcastic at times. I’m not gratuitously assigning fascist and Nazi behavior to opponents like many of you assign the Commie, Stalinist smear on this site. If you’re trying to equate me w/ that crap, sorry, I’m not even close to that. Really, my main issue is that you and a lot of the posters here think this stuff passes for some type of high brow argument, when it doesn’t impress me at all.
You’re the one that insists on talking about conspiracies, I don’t remember articulating such a notion. I stated the facts about neocons and their intentions and the fact that when they got into the Bush Adm they forged ahead w/ their plans. That’s historical fact, now documented in numerous books from the left and right.
On your third point I agree w/ a lot of it, though I’m much more skeptical of moralistically based foreign policy, it’s led to many disasters and poor analysis of world realities, for example mistaking many nationalist movements in the past for Communist aggressions, cost millions of lives. Also, don’t totally agree w/ yr demarcation of Wilsonian notions and neocon. policy, many similarities. You have to ask the question, can we solve all the misery and knock off all the repressive regimes, or do we ascertain our national interests first, and go from there? We may agree more than disagree on this point, but the application of this principle was simply absent in the decision to invade Iraq. To this day, I see it as an elective war, far down the list of priorities following 9/11, as did the overwhelming majority of generals.
# Sally Says:
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
This is just Y vs. Chris. It has nothing to do with Bush or neo-cons.
You forget that I know you for what you are, Sally. It is not so much politics or ideology you are against, as the fact that once you select a target, it doesn’t really matter what they believe or do.
You may start off disagreeing via the politics, but your personality always goes for the tarring. There doesn’t even need to be a disagreement, because you are never interested in finding points of commonality or even clarification.
Do you really believe that after your first 2 or so comments, that you have anything worth saying, Sally? Your problem was never ideological; your problem was always that you like to become that which you fight.
After so many examples of you doing what you do, do you really think this would not be obvious?
It has nothing to do with Bush or neo-cons.
As I said, philosophically it has nothing to do with Bush and neo-cons. For neither Bush nor the neo-con movement are part of why Iran failed or the cause of Pakistan’s current turmoil.
You do run out of original points after awhile, Sally. Few people on the conservative side of things can take ideological, policy, or philosophical agreements and turn it into a jerk athon spat. You are one of the rare few, Sally.
If jimfocus was Commander in Chief: Iraq is defeated in war. The country has no government and society is in chaos. A government has to be created. Let’s see … what kind of government shall we create? Communist? Islamic theocracy? Secular dictatorship? Monarchy? WHAT! A democratic government, you say! No, never .. anything but the dreaded democracy! Omigod, that would even mean open elections! We can’t have THAT!-grackle
Here is an example of the folks that truly like forcing their own government upon foreigners, grackle.
Link
The military creates security from the ground up. The Democrats prefer to create democracy from the top down, as all aristocrats were meant to do.
jimf: Many of those supporting the war and the neocon view on here have heaped insult and scorn on their opponents—anyone does that to me, I’ll be respectful, but I’ll give it right back.
Fine, but then you’ll get it right back. I didn’t think your tone started out as that respectful, and so neither did mine. But I’m happy to respectfully agree to disagree now. All in all, I think this has been a good debate that’s helped to clarify a number of issues — though clearly (see above) not everyone feels the same — and, maybe to the surprise of us both, in the end we may agree more than we disagree. Thanks.
Y: Few people on the conservative side of things can take ideological, policy, or philosophical agreements and turn it into a jerk athon spat. You are one of the rare few, Sally.
Gosh, thanks, Y. Are you sad that you’re not getting enough attention? Here, have some.
One thing that is glaringly missing in these commentaries are the thoughts and wishes of the Iraqis themselves. I find in patronizing at the least that somehow WE, the US, knows what’s best for them.
For example, how do you deal with the near 70% of Iraqis wanting us to leave? At the same time they see their oil law being constucted by US Oil companies and adopted by their leadership under what appears to be a threat of future security, the overall scepticism of the ordinary Iraqi citizen has eroded much of the support that they had at one time.
How to deal with the new laws to crack down on foreign private security companies within Iraq, basically revoking the protections that they once had under Bremmer et al? It appears if the Iraqi leadership is starting to wean itself from those who once governed them, and what will this mean for the future of our dealings within Iraq?
Finally, something that flew under the radar of most Americans is the constuction of the largest, most expensive embassy in history. This seems less like a “we will not stay on day later than needed” mission meant to free the Iraqis, and more of a colonial conquest. How do you explain this?
Curious. My last two comments have not appeared. I am beginning to wonder if I’ve been blocked from making comments on the site. If that is the case I am curious as to why that would be the case.
A third attempt to post my substantive comment just failed. Neo can you tell me why?
Sally, you are a lovable and capable person, I really liked that post on for. policy–got me thinking.
“I could have clocked him–he was calling Colin Powell a wuss for being overly concerned about the troops’ lives & I said Powell’s doing what he’s been trained to do, look out for these kids’ lives…you shouldn’t be talking about them like that.”
–conservative novelist Tom Clancy about his near fisticuffs w/ neocon Richard Perle at a DC party in early 2003
There are certain words you can’t say like Som(a)lia. Because it has the first four letters for a drug in it.
black(j)ack and other cas[i]no stuff is a big no as well. Any comment with such words will disappear as if it never existed.
I find in patronizing at the least that somehow WE, the US, knows what’s best for them.
So are you for Musharaff or some other faction in Pakistan, Laura? Does this principle of yours apply to any other situation than Iraq?
For example, how do you deal with the near 70% of Iraqis wanting us to leave?
The same way the US dealt with the probably 99% of the Germans after WW2 who wanted the US to leave — Politely inform them that we’ll leave once we are reasonably certain another Hitler/Saddam/Stalin isn’t going to call the shots for the country.
It appears if the Iraqi leadership is starting to wean itself from those who once governed them, and what will this mean for the future of our dealings within Iraq?
Whatever dealings are in the Iraq/US future are bound to be better than all the crap Saddam pulled.
Finally, something that flew under the radar of most Americans is the construction of the largest, most expensive embassy in history. This seems less like a “we will not stay on day later than needed” mission meant to free the Iraqis, and more of a colonial conquest. How do you explain this?
Offhand I’d say it could be explained by one nation(the US) maintaining a diplomatic presence in a friendly country(Iraq) — as is done all over the world by all friendly governments. The anti-war folks always seem to find ominous meanings for the most commonplace of situations. Hyperbole always abounds, as with the reference to “colonial conquest.”
Hi grackle, you know some of the more strident neocons have argued that an American neo-colonialism in the ME wouldn’t be that bad–Dzousa, Bolton (tho he appears to be shifting), Feith. If the Iraqi Parliament ever passes the Petroleum Act it will lease out 60 of Iraq’s 83 oil fields to US firms on a no-bid basis. 4 mega-bases have been completed, one being among the largest air bases in the world–it looks like someone is planning a long, long presence there. Saddam was bad, but we are currently in bed w/ some very, very oppressive people in the region as we speak–I’m not saying we shouldn’t be, it’s just me getting uneasy about that moralistic argument again.
Grackle, in response to your assertion that the German view of the US was unfavorable, I would like to point out the following.
According to a study on national stereotypes conducted in 1948—1949, the four adjectives most
frequently used by the French, British, Australians, West Germans, Italians, Dutch, and Norwegians to describe Americans were: “progressive, generous, practical, and hardworking” (Buchanan and Cantril 1953). West European opinion of the U.S.
was generally favorable during the entire Cold War period, from 1954 to 1991.
Also, Germany and Japan for that matter had a strong sense of national identity. We know for certain that that same nationalism doesn’t exist in Iraq. Rather a more primitive and cultural identity exists within the regions of Iraq proper made up of tribal communities as well as differences in religious identity.
Were these cultural differences taken into account when deciding an “exit strategy”, if one indeed ever exists? With little visible movement on the political differences in Iraq, it is apparent that the occupation will be long lasting. Since all of the military generals in Iraq have said that there is no military solution for Iraq and only political, then how can any of you on this thread talk about victory? I have yet to see a reasonable response to that question.
“Whatever dealings are in the Iraq/US future are bound to be better than all the crap Saddam pulled.” What do you point to in Iraq now that leads you to advance that argument?
Finally, a “diplomatic” presence cannot be forced. It is arrogant and foolish to compare other countries to the ME countries and to do so only furthers the argument that cultural and religious differences were not taken into account as seriously as they should have. Not to mention the FACT that the Bush himself made it clear to the US and to the IRAQIS, that our presence there would end as soon as the what? Do you recall how many times the mission changed? A large military presence will be needed just to protect the new 500 million dollar compound that takes up the size of 5 UN complexes in New York.
In addition, what makes any of you think that we, the US will be better at this than the Europeans?.
The Europeans also wanted to loosen Islam’s hold on the region by promoting secular government. But foreign powers trying to impose their own order would not be welcomed in places “whose inhabitants for more than a thousand years have avowed faith in a holy law that governs all life, including government and politics.”
Further complicating matters, the British had made a number of conflicting commitments during the war: They had promised Arabs independence in return for taking up arms against their Turkish Ottoman rulers. In 1917, in what became known as the Balfour Declaration, Britain announced its support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Finally, they made a secret agreement with their French allies to divvy up large chunks of Ottoman territory between them.
These actions early in the twentieth century had long lasting effects. What can any of you point to as encouraging in the democratization of the Middle East? And please, let’s go beyond purple fingers okay? You would turn out in record numbers also if you had been oppressed for decades as well in order to secure a slice of power for yourself.
Hi grackle, you know some of the more strident neocons have argued that an American neo-colonialism in the ME wouldn’t be that bad—Dzousa, Bolton (tho he appears to be shifting), Feith. If the Iraqi Parliament ever passes the Petroleum Act it will lease out 60 of Iraq’s 83 oil fields to US firms on a no-bid basis. 4 mega-bases have been completed, one being among the largest air bases in the world—it looks like someone is planning a long, long presence there. Saddam was bad, but we are currently in bed w/ some very, very oppressive people in the region as we speak—I’m not saying we shouldn’t be, it’s just me getting uneasy about that moralistic argument again.
Sorry, jimfocus, but it’s hard for me to work up much of sweat about the leasing of oil fields. Private companies all over the world lease oil fields all over the ME. Have been doing so for ages.
Oil companies from France, Russia, China and other countries, at the exclusion of the US, were doing the leasing in Iraq during Saddam’s bloody reign. Were you concerned about all those “colonial conquests” back in those days? It’s called a ‘double standard’ — one impossibly high for the US and none at all for other countries.
Now there’s a new government in Iraq — with new friends. Funny how things change — funny how things are perceived when they do. Again, dear anti-war folks — try next time to get excited about something other than business dealings that have been going on since oil was discovered in the ME.
I’m not that worked up either, it’s just that we heard over and over the invasion was not about oil–seems to be coming down to that.
Grackle, in response to your assertion that the German view of the US was unfavorable, I would like to point out the following. According to a study on national stereotypes conducted in 1948—1949, the four adjectives most frequently used by the French, British, Australians, West Germans, Italians, Dutch, and Norwegians to describe Americans were: “progressive, generous, practical, and hardworking” (Buchanan and Cantril 1953). West European opinion of the U.S. was generally favorable during the entire Cold War period, from 1954 to 1991.
Sorry, Laura, but it’s difficult for me to believe German citizens welcomed a foreign occupation after WW2, but then they didn’t have any choice, did they? Now, after they got to know us for a few years, and after they observed what was happening in East Germany under a murderous Soviet regime, I’m sure things got a bit friendlier. Some occupiers are a lot nicer to have around than other occupiers, eh? In fact, the US still maintains that dreaded, wicked military presence over much of Europe, amazingly enough at the request of the host countries – even EMBASSIES! Shhh … keep it quiet …
Also, Germany and Japan for that matter had a strong sense of national identity. We know for certain that that same nationalism doesn’t exist in Iraq. Rather a more primitive and cultural identity exists within the regions of Iraq proper made up of tribal communities as well as differences in religious identity. Were these cultural differences taken into account when deciding an “exit strategy”, if one indeed ever exists? With little visible movement on the political differences in Iraq, it is apparent that the occupation will be long lasting.
I’ve never maintained that the war in Iraq was mistake-free. Earlier in this thread I admitted as much but pointed out that mistakes are inevitable in almost any war — and gave as a case in point the many blunders by the US in WW2. If the commentor had been around during WW2 no doubt she would have been urging Roosevelt and Truman to retreat to the mainland America because of lack of American knowledge of Japanese culture and before America became the scandalous creator of “colonial conquests.”
Since all of the military generals in Iraq have said that there is no military solution for Iraq and only political, then how can any of you on this thread talk about victory? I have yet to see a reasonable response to that question.
Maybe if the commentor would provide a link to, say, General Petraeus, who is a military General in Iraq, saying something along those lines, I might take her seriously. Until then, I’m going to go with my own belief — which is: Most diplomacy is doomed to failure unless backed up by guns.
“Whatever dealings are in the Iraq/US future are bound to be better than all the crap Saddam pulled.” What do you point to in Iraq now that leads you to advance that argument?
Saddam invaded an ally, was beaten back and defeated. Afterwards, he violated every post-war agreement. He kept engaging our aircraft in the no-fly zone. Many believe he tried to assassinate Bush senior. He kept buying nuclear centrifuges on the sly. With the assistance of a corrupt UN he siphoned off money meant for starving Iraqi children. He was what is known in diplomatic circles as a ‘hostile actor.’ He’s dead and in his place is a new government, which is friendly toward the US. How elementary must we get?
Finally, a “diplomatic” presence cannot be forced.
I think the commentor has forgotten that Iraq was defeated in a war — 2 wars, actually. Presence CAN be forced and is customarily forced onto any defeated nation. Again, I find it extremely difficult to become shocked by the obvious and normal course of events, duplicated time and time again throughout history.
It is arrogant and foolish to compare other countries to the ME countries and to do so only furthers the argument that cultural and religious differences were not taken into account as seriously as they should have. Not to mention the FACT that the Bush himself made it clear to the US and to the IRAQIS, that our presence there would end as soon as the what? Do you recall how many times the mission changed? A large military presence will be needed just to protect the new 500 million dollar compound that takes up the size of 5 UN complexes in New York.
No doubt the commentor is crazy with anxiety and rage that the US still has a “military presence” in Germany — OVER 50 YEARS after Germany’s defeat!
9/07/07 Boston Globe
‘Petraeus, during his confirmation hearings in January, told Congress that there was no possibility of a military victory in Iraq, only a political solution. And by this critical measure, he concedes the surge is faltering.’
October 10 2002
Anthony Zinni discussing what a successful mission in Iraq would look like:
General Zinni: Thank you. Ned asked me to look at the possibility of military action in Iraq and sort of describe the lane between best case, worst case and maybe the most likely case scenarios are and where the minefields may be.
“Let me start with the best case. Last night I sat down and said, “What would have to happen to make any military action to turn out in the best possible way?” I wrote ten conditions for this war that would have to happen. The first condition is that the coalition is in. The second is that the war is short. The third is that destruction is light. Fourth is that Israel is out. Fifth is that the street is quiet. Sixth is that order is kept. Seventh is that the burden is shared. Eighth is that the change is orderly. Ninth is that the military is not stuck. Tenth is that other commitments are met. That’s an easy list. (laughter) If we design our strategy and our tactics based on that, it will all work out.”
another
“I knew the intelligence; I saw it right up to the day of the war. I was asked at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing a month before the war if I thought the threat was imminent. I didn’t.”
Anthony Zinni
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/291-Ret.-General-Zinni-on-Iraq-Ten-years-worth-of-planning-were-thrown-away.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq – (KRT) – A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than 1,300 U.S. troops during the past two years.
Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics – an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.
“I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that … this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,” Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. “It’s going to be settled in the political process.”
“Our eventual departure,” he worries, “will leave nothing but cosmetic structure here.” “Every mission,” he writes, “requires a conscious escape from the resignation that there is nothing here to win and every occasion to fail.”
Small miracles do happen–a child is saved, a generator is installed. There remain “possibilities.” But sullen eyes along the roadsides give this officer “the feeling that we have stayed too long but can not leave.”
“I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that … this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,” Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. “It’s going to be settled in the political process.”
Gen Sanchez:
OUR COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS AND PROVIDE TIME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GRAND STRATEGY. THAT WILL BE WASTED EFFORT AS WE HAVE SEEN REPEATEDLY SINCE 2003. IN THE MEAN TIME OUR SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN AND MARINES WILL CONTINUE TO DIE.
SINCE THE START OF THIS WAR, AMERICA’S LEADERSHIP HAS KNOWN THAT OUR MILITARY ALONE COULD NOT ACHIEVE VICTORY IN IRAQ. STARTING IN JULY 2003, THE MESSAGE REPEATEDLY COMMUNICATED TO WASHINGTON BY MILITARY COMMANDERS ON THE GROUND WAS THAT THE MILITARY ALONE COULD NEVER ACHIEVE “VICTORY” IN IRAQ.
I am happy to keep going if you like.
So, my point is this. Why isn’t more being done to try and work within the window of opportunity created by our military doing an excellent job? Eye of the Hurricane?
Why isn’t Bush putting more pressure on the Iraqis to get their act together and work a political solution?
See what Gen Odierno says on 11-14-07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html
Grackle says arrogantly so:
“I think the commentor has forgotten that Iraq was defeated in a war — 2 wars, actually. Presence CAN be forced and is customarily forced onto any defeated nation. Again, I find it extremely difficult to become shocked by the obvious and normal course of events, duplicated time and time again throughout history. ”
Are you fucking nuts? Sorry for the swear, but really? “Defeated nation?”
WE WENT IN BECAUSE OF AN IMMINENT THREAT OF WMD RIGHT? THE IRAQIS WERE NOT OUR ENEMY. WE WENT IN TO REMOVE SADDAM. WE COMPLETED OUR MISSION. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD WERE TOLD THIS.
Hubris.
Indeed, after years of seizing on every positive development and complaining that the good news wasn’t being adequately conveyed, American military officials now warn against excessive optimism. “It’s never as bad as it was, and it’s not as good as it’s being reported now,” said Army Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, chief of strategic operations for U.S. forces in Iraq.
On the diplomatic side of the Iraq equation, U.S. officials said they realize time is short. “We’ve got six months because the military is leaving,” said one official. But this official and others expressed irritation with the military’s negativity toward the Iraqi government — which they interpret as blaming the State Department for not speeding reconciliation.
“That’s their out,” the official said of the military. “It’s convenient, and I know plenty of them have been helping that story around.”
Diplomatic officials, none of whom were authorized to speak on the record, insisted that progress is being made, even if it lags behind military successes. They highlighted two key elements needed for political reconciliation in Iraq, one domestic and one external. Internally, sectarian politicians remain deadlocked on a range of issues. Shiite political groups are holding back as they vie for national power and control over resources, while the majority Shiite population fears that the Sunnis hope to recapture the dominance they held under Saddam Hussein.
Also, some outside experts contend that U.S. officials still don’t grasp how their empowerment of militias under the bottom-up model of reconciliation is helping tear apart Iraq. Marc Lynch, a George Washington University expert on the Middle East, argued recently on his blog, Abu Aardvark, that partly because of U.S. political tactics in Iraq, the country is drifting “towards a warlord state, along a Basra model, with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state.”
Officials identified other potential problems flowing from reductions in violence. Military planners already worry that if security continues to improve, many of the 2 million Iraqis who fled the country will return. Those who left are overwhelmingly Sunni, and many of their old houses are occupied by Shiites. How would the Shiite-dominated Iraqi army and police handle the likely friction? “Displaced people is a major flashpoint” to worry about in 2008, said Fetter.
The answer to many of Iraq’s problems, several military officials said, would be to hold provincial elections, which they said would inject new blood into Iraq’s political life and also better link the Baghdad government to the people. The question under debate is whether to hold them sooner, while the U.S. military still has available its five “surge” brigades, or hold them later and let Iraqis enjoy their growing sense of safety — even though a smaller U.S. military would have less flexibility. “Some areas, you need them right now, to get people into the government,” said Campbell. “But the other side of me says, let it settle in, let security develop, let people see some services.” Later rather than sooner is especially appealing because the election campaigns are expected to turn violent.
But the longer provincial balloting is put off, the more likely the current political stalemate will continue. Also, if elections are postponed until, say, the fall of next year, they will be held on the eve of a U.S. presidential vote in which the Iraq war promises to be a major issue, military planners here note.
So, how to force political change in Iraq without destabilizing the country further? “I pity the guy who has to reconcile that tension,” said Lt. Col. Douglas Ollivant, the chief of planning for U.S. military operations in Baghdad, whose tour of duty ends next month.
Unhinged.
Laura’s problem is that she actually believes the MSM take on what Petraeus is saying. As if the media is known by how accurately they portray the beliefs of people they quote. Especially in terms of a policy, the surge, that the media wishes to fail.
that partly because of U.S. political tactics in Iraq, the country is drifting “towards a warlord state, along a Basra model, with power devolved to local militias, gangs, tribes, and power-brokers, with a purely nominal central state.”
Indeed, that is why Britain outlawed guns and various other things that their citizens aren’t allowed to do. One must keep the individuals in check, after all, in a top down hierarchy.
The answer to many of Iraq’s problems, several military officials said, would be to hold provincial elections,
At the same time Laura and company are complaining about the various years of OIF, they at the same time resurrect policies that began in 2005. Somehow their policies will work whereas the policies they criticized all those years ago, didn’t work.
Again Yarm, you are “thinking” about this from your own perspective as an american citizen living in this country.
You think that the generals are wrong on this? Or that they are somehow tainted in their thinking that there is no military solution? Are they wrong and you and your fellow war fans are right?
Please inform me, cause it sure sounds like that to me.
Yarm aptly quoting someone who actually might know a little more than he on this subject of the bottom up approach.
Marc Lynch, a George Washington University expert on the Middle East
Does it not bother you that millions of US dollars have gone missing in Iraq and Rice has no explanation other than yes it’s a fact? Or that hundreds of weapons have also been “lost” and have gotten into the hands of those who kill our soldiers?
Didn’t we arm the very person who spearheaded a terror movement, Osama in Afghanistan?
Laura, we know what you think about the war. When are you going to tell us what your family member thinks?
Or do you really have a family member in country?
Again, I appreciate your sacrifice, and understand your righteous anger, but again, it’s a volunteer army, is it not? Do the troops not know what they signed up for?
I like a good spirited debate — but when the profanity begins my participation ends.
Okay, it’s official then. “Military Family” Laura is a spambot troll.
stumbley:”Again, I appreciate your sacrifice, and understand your righteous anger, but again, it’s a volunteer army, is it not? Do the troops not know what they signed up for?”
No, indeed a volunteer army that is being drafted with stop loss orders is not a voluteer army any longer.
go to endstoplossnow
70,000 soldiers being drafted by stop loss orders is not what they signed up for, and is more a statement of how stretched the military is. Sadly, this admininstration will not acknowledge what Casey did in a hearing that he insisted be public.
Get the facts
Just by the way (and as a way of getting in the 200th comment which might be a record here):
“Stop-loss” has been around for a long time, and has been used before Iraq, so anyone volunteering for the military would, or should, have been aware of the possibility, just as they should be aware of the possibility that they might be involved in combat in the first place. The fact that it’s being used now does indeed indicate that the military is stretched, and that’s certainly not good, but it’s no argument that their mission is not needed.
Think.
from end stop loss now:
republican military mother and attorney says:
First, Congress never declared war on Iraq so we are not at war. We are not in conflict with anyone but terrorists, however, the conflict in Iraq is between two factions of the same religion. It is not our conflict nor is it our civil war. Second, the Department of Defense has chosen to include “conflict” in the word “war’ in that particular provision. Third, the U.S. did what Congress gave the President the power to do: Saddam Hussein is dead and there is no WMD. Fourth, this is a war between different factions of the same religion who have hated each other for centuries and each wants control of Iraq, therefore, this is a Civil War in Iraq and has nothing to do with the United States. Fifth, the stop-loss policy equates not only to a “back-door” draft but it also has a more fundamental derogation of the U.S. Constitution and that is one of “indentured servitude”.
Gates has come out recently trying to limit the use of stop loss due to the fact that it is really hurting morale in Iraq and at home with the loss of support of military families.
The bottom line Sally is that you can’t continue to use the same people over and over again in a war. If we are at war, then it needs to be declared and we need to reinstate the draft. Otherwise, you run the risk of losing the morale and support of the voluteer armed services and degrade their capability and readiness (willingness) to fight. This is a national security issue to me.
The bottom line Sally is that you can’t continue to use the same people over and over again in a war.
No, you can’t. But, for a time, and when you have to, you can and must. When national security is really at stake, it takes precedence over such issues. I realize, of course, that you don’t think it is at stake in this struggle, but you’re wrong in that. I also realize that you seem to think that whenever American troops are needed to protect national security that they should be raised via a draft — but you’re wrong in that too.
Of course, those are my opinions obviously. If you want to argue about them, fine, do so. But those are the issues involved here, and the only ones that will help or hurt your case in this forum — not insults, not sneers, not cut-and-paste jobs from MoveOn and the like, whether or not they’ve found some military type they can quote out of context. Don’t just gather data — think.
Well Sally, I hope for your sake and for our country that your rather glib indifference doesn’t come back and bite you in the rear.
I really do.
Especially in terms of a policy, the surge, that the media wishes to fail.
Have you seen Neo’s post from today?
The Saddam regime was simply one of those, but it was one in the very heart of the benighted region, as well as the one that was most actively hostile, the most tyrannical, and had demonstrated the most willingness to use WMDs in the past.
You have a myopic vision of history my friend, which is common on this blog. Iran has clearly been the greatest state sponsor of terror, and the most actively hostile to us and our interests. The WMDs that Saddam used were first used against Iran, with our implicit approval. Clearly, if you think that we were invading the Middle East to “drain the swamp” of terror, you would understand that the appropriate target is Iran, not Iraq. Iraq was however, considerably more convenient and that’s why we invaded it. Let’s try to remember that there were those who wanted an invasion of Iraq before 9/11, ok?
X: Clearly, if you think that we were invading the Middle East to “drain the swamp” of terror, you would understand that the appropriate target is Iran, not Iraq. Iraq was however, considerably more convenient and that’s why we invaded it. Let’s try to remember that there were those who wanted an invasion of Iraq before 9/11, ok?
You’re a little late getting around to this, X, but now you’ve raised it, fine. You have to start somewhere, and the most convenient starting point is often the most logical. If you’ll notice, though, it looks like we’re getting around to Iran as well — I do hope, like I presume you hope, it’ll be in time.
9/11, by the way, wasn’t the start of the asymmetric war we’re engaged in — it only marked our awakening to the scope and significance of the struggle that the other side had been pursuing for some time. Let’s hope it won’t take another such atrocity before more of us become willing to take the necessary pre-emptive steps.
Laura, since you refuse to actually answer the question of what your alleged family member thinks of the conflict in Iraq, I’m officially designating you a liar, and therefore not worth any more of our time.
I would like to remind Laura of a real fact instead of a goodfact. Ending stop loss is a policy and political position, not a “fact”.
A “fact” that inevitably leads to the position of “stoping stop loss” is not so much a “fact” as it is a slogan.
Stumbley, also it seems Occam’s petition may be an effective solution here. We might not be able to eradicate stoploss, but certainly we may be able to get Laura’s family in Iraq discharged.
Oh Sally is “officially” calling me a liar. You really think I care what you think Sally?
Clearly not.
No, that was stumbley actually. And don’t worry, Laura, the indifference is mutual.
Hey, if I were half as succinct and credible as Sally, I’d be really pleased. How nice of you to confuse me with her, but sorry, it’s just me. And none of us really care what you think anymore.
“you would understand that the appropriate target is Iran”
Glad that you’re finally seeing the light, X. I’m sure you’ll support any action that needs to be taken, right?
Bravo Laura!
I love the way you respond to the junior-high level ad hominem with a battering ram of facts and analysis.
I’ve learned a lot from reading your posts.
Keep it coming!
And thanks jimfocus for letting me know about the Super Secret Hate America Network. I will see you at the secret elite convocation at Keith Olberman’s elite liberal mansion!
Topic for the next convocation – how to spin this:
As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts
Your reasoning is, um, versatile, OB.
When Democrats insist that things aren’t going well enough in Iraq, you accuse them of ignoring advances. When they “shift their tone” to reflect the perceived advances, you cough up some dull barb about spinning.
Wake up. War is not a sporting event with two teams, a scoreboard and cheerleaders for both sides.
I love America and I in opposing the war, I stand firmly on American principles.
I wonder if you, OB, have different ideas about what those principles actually are. Perhaps so, but I’d never accusing you of “hating America” just because you happen to disagree with me.
Why is it so hard for wingnuts to understand that?
Great Bunkerbuster!
My interpretation is quite different: things are improving to the point that the politically astute are tacking to avoid being caught out if things should continue to improve. After all, if the insurrection should collapse tomorrow, the Dems would look pretty stupid, so putting some equivocation on the record is just buying insurance.
Dems voted to support the war (almost unanimously). Then, many of them opposed the war, when things got sticky. Now, they’re trying to backwater yet again. In a year, if things continue to prove (a big if) some of them will once again be pointing out to all and sundry that they’d voted for the war. Expediency, I believe it’s called.
I respect Hillary, Lieberman, McCain, and of course Bush, for not vacillating from their original positions as our fortunes waxed and waned. The rest of them…
I have no problem with those who merely disagree with me on policy, regardless of how silly I think their policy is. I have all the problem in the world with those who hate America, and let’s face it, such people exist, and they’re largely on the left side of the aisle. If you think that that statement is hyperbolic, check this.
“I have all the problem in the world with those who hate America, and let’s face it, such people exist, and they’re largely on the left side of the aisle.”
What about the fringe far right. Do you have a “problem with them” as well? I mean, how about the wacky “rapture ready, christians united for israel” crowd that actually wish to bring about the end time? Or the westborough bapbtist church crowd that show up as soldier’s funerals.
Hopefully you mean any far left or right crowd.
I did, and I do.
Anybody who would protest and create factionalism because they don’t like war, is not a good organization.
Glad that you’re finally seeing the light, X. I’m sure you’ll support any action that needs to be taken, right?
No, I’m pointing out the inconsistencies of this hokey “drain the swamp” rationale. Attacking Iran pre-Iraq would be one thing; it’s quite a different proposal now.
Anybody who would protest and create factionalism because they don’t like war, is not a good organization.
Like a church?
Yarm, what are you talking about? Peace protestors are bad, unpatriotic?
Have you forgotten where you live?
Are you pretending to be ignorant, Laura? That church group you are talking about is protesting the war because they are against the military and believe that bad things have happened to the military because the military did bad things in Iraq.
You know, broken military and all that.