Is a stable, functioning democracy
still an option — in America?
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THE IRAQ SITUATION has become so chaotic, such a tangled knot of irreconcilable competing factions and contradictory indications that it’s almost impossible even to know what’s really going on, much less determine what ought to happen next.
The great moment of optimism following historic elections has faded. It’s bad enough to tempt even the most stalwart advocate of democracy to want to declare the capital city a lost cause and withdraw immediately.
But we can’t, because we’re not talking about Baghdad, but about Washington.
In that strife-torn city by the Potomac, it’s gotten hard to tell who wants to do what, much less what will or should happen next, or when. Confused? Well, that means you’re starting to get it.
Look at just one development of the past week.
On Wednesday — the eve of President Bush’s meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki — the lead story in The New York Times was headlined, “Bush Adviser’s Memo Cites Doubts about Iraqi Leader.”
“His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans,” National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley wrote of Mr. Maliki, “But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”
In other words, our boy either can’t deliver or won’t. Bad either way. But, insisted the “administration official” who gave the five-page memo to a Times reporter despite its being “classified secret,” the administration “retains confidence in the Iraqi leader.”
The very fact that the memo was released the way it was and when it was (weeks after it was drafted) suggests just how difficult it will be to chart a new course for Iraq, even while everybody from newly elected Democrats to administration officials to friends of the president’s daddy are trying like crazy to find one.
Read about the memo, and the following thoughts are likely to occur in quick succession:
Oh, there goes The New York Times again, undermining the nation’s ability to act effectively in a time of war by revealing critical secrets at critical moments. No, wait — this looks like an authorized, carefully spun leak. So the administration deliberately put it out there just as the president is about to meet with this guy to tell him he’s doing a heckuva job.
Little wonder Mr. Maliki canceled the first of his scheduled sessions with the president. He has no more confidence in our friendship than we do in his.
Obviously, the administration doesn’t know what to do next. But it’s hardly alone. Nobody else seems to know either (except the folks in the “pull-out-now” wing, whom you can watch get increasingly furious over the coming weeks as they realize that the Democrats who won the election aren’t that irresponsible).
The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee doesn’t know, although he insisted to the Columbia Rotary Club last week that he’s the one guy who does know.
Joe Biden told of confidently laying down the law to Mr. Bush:
“Mr. President… if the Lord Almighty came down in the middle of the table here in the Roosevelt
Room, and looked you in the eye and said, ‘Mr. President, every single jihadi, every single member of al Qaida has been wiped off the face of the earth,’ Mr. President, you’d still have a full-blown war. A full-blown war. In Iraq. And it’s a civil war, Mr. President. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men will not be able to…” etc.
But most of what he had to say about Iraq was stuff we already knew: The factions must find a way to work together and trust each other (or at least check each other, via a loose federal system), we won’t solve it through military force alone, and so forth.
He wants to start drawing down U.S. troops sometime soon, but he sets no deadlines. Why? He understands the stakes too well.
Back to the Times: A news analysis on Friday concluded that “the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option” — certainly within the administration, but also among some key Democrats.
More importantly, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that so many who want out have pinned their hopes on apparently will avoid timetables as well. I say “apparently” because the group hasn’t released its report yet — all that authoritative prattling you’ve been hearing has been based on leaks.
So what do we do from here? As Sen. Biden told the Rotarians, when it comes to Iraq, “We’re gonna have to choose to hang together, or we’re all going to hang separately.”
The factions in Washington seem to find it as hard to work together as do those in Iraq — even without all that literal bad blood. To be sure, there is a common drift — among Democrats and on the study group — toward a vague plan that talks about redeployment, but sets no timetable.
That’s hardly a firm consensus on a clear course. One thing is clear, though: As various factors — the study group’s report, the administration’s reassessment, the convening of a Democratic Congress — converge in the coming weeks, we have to come up with something that we can agree upon, and that works.
President Bush will have to listen to people he doesn’t want to listen to, and then those people are going to have to unite behind him — as distasteful as that will be for them — as everyone works to implement a course that won’t entirely please anybody.
Sound impossible? Perhaps so. But either those things happen, or we might as well kiss this whole risky nation-building enterprise goodbye.
And once again, I’m not talking about Iraq. I mean this shaky republican experiment called the United States of America.
Related Posts
Brad, this is one of your best commentaries. Reality is setting in quickly on the anti-war types who spouted immediate withdrawal nonsense leading up to the election. Any kind of non-victorious withdrawal will result in the eventuality of Iran ending up with control of the entire middle east oil sources. The economic result would be disastrous when they would have the ability to price oil at $400 a barrel if they wanted, then also use the new funding to go completely nuclear with the willing Russians paving the way. This cannot happen, no matter what the cost, to the free world. Who knows what the ultimate solution will have to be, but most agree that first the Iraqis have to resolve their own internal differences. If that means half of the Iraqi kill the other half over their sectarian hatred, let them have at it. Our role should be to protect those who WANT to be protected and that does not include the Sadr followers or the Sunnis.
As for Washington politics, we will now be in a true gridlock situation, on reform, new programs, judges, taxes, etc. Two years from now the American public will call this the Do-Nothing But Talk Congress, and we will have a wholesale throw the bums out result. In spite of gridlock, a lot of money will get spent (as usual) with the pork flowing in much the same way it always does. So, lots of hot air and rhetoric but business as usual in many respects. This isnt all bad unless one wants truly radical change. I am not pessimistic that we are on some kind of a track for the failure of the American experiment, not yet anyway. When our reps and Senators start fistfighting and beating each other with chairs, I may change my sentiments at that stage. But for now, sit back and watch the hogs serve the pork.
We just threw the bums out Dave – what a short memory.
Reality is setting in for the neo-cons whose steadfast support for the straw man war is now crumbling. There’s no talk about Mission Accomplished. The seed of democracy in the Middle East was a dropped among rocks. Success has been whittled down to a Frankenstein government that simply wants to live.
Aside from Dave and like-minded imperialist who champion American bases in Iraq for years to come, the focus now is simply how get out of this mess. That’s the fruition of the lobbying of the “cut and run” crowd who are now vindicated.
Randy says – the focus now is simply how get out of this mess. That’s the fruition of the lobbying of the “cut and run” crowd who are now vindicated
Not so quick reality Dnyar, my bet is Americans cannot stand and will not stand for the surrender to Al Qaeda crowd getting their way.
Dave’s Final Solution for Iraq (and the world, I presume) is to kill all the Muslims who don’t convert to Christianity because Jeffersonian democracy is rooted in Christian values and Muslim values are antithetical to democracy.
Since American intel attributes only about 2-3% of the “insurgency” to AQ, Dave brings up a straw man argument about “surrendering to AQ.”
The reality-based community understands that Iraq is in the midst of the predicted sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
The Bush Administration, Dave and Brad refuse to recognize this reality for a variety of reasons. Brad is in denial because of emotionally distorted ignorance, apparently. Dave rejects reality because of partisanship. The Bushies habitually deny any mistakes.
Needless to say this civil war among Iraqis– predicted by most knowledgeable observers prior to the invasion– qualifies as a Titanic blunder of proportions difficult to overstate.
The American people will accept withdrawal from Iraq as they accepted our defeat in Vietnam. They will be given a figleaf excuse in 2009 after Bush stubbornly presides over the deaths of thousands more Americans and tens of thousands more Iraqis. The rightwing will construct a false narrative about how Fifth Column Liberals destroyed American will to wage the war.
If we’re lucky some presidential candidate will propose a peace conference that forestalls the Middle East going up in flames.
If we’re not lucky then all bets are off.
Killing those who want to kill us is one obvious solution. So far, the anti-American Left has not been able to come up with any other ideas for defeating them.
The day after the election, Al Qaeda and other Muslim hate groups announced that removing every US soldier from Muslim lands was not enough for them. They stated that they “will not rest until the White House is brought down in flames”.
This war started under President Carter, yet most Democrats have deluded themselves into thinking they can hide from it and suddenly live in peace with the primitive Islamic savages.
Add Lee to the list of those consumed by racial, religious and cultural hatred for Muslims. From the above post and his previous posts, I’m pretty sure that he subscribes to Dave’s Final Solution for Muslims.
Lee and Dave bring the finest thinking of the 8th Century to the blog.
Hurling all the time – No one hates all Muslims, but if they want to burn the White House and destroy our system of government, most reasonable people would agree that we need to defend ourselves. I realize you and some of our resident pacifist surrender at all costs bloggers would sooner quit than win, but those who want to defend ourselves are still in the majority, vast majority of this nation.
Brad and Dave both overlook an important shift in American public opinion, and they don’t fully recognize that the argument going on now is profoundly different from the argument that went on even just before the November elections.
First of all, few of the Democrats who ran successfully advocated immediate “right-this-second” withdrawal. Maybe Lamont, but he lost. But most of these recent Democratic winners do favor a setting of a timetable to draw down our troops, sooner rather than later.
So the fundamental shift has arrived, in that we are now in this country mostly discussing how speedily or how deliberately to withdraw American troops. Though McCain carries a lot of clout, I see no way that the American people will stand for the idea of sending MORE troops to Iraq, and as far as the “stay the course” route that W seems to continue to hang onto, well, that is unraveling all around him within his own administration and certainly his own party.
Brad writes:
”
Obviously, the administration doesn’t know what to do next. But it’s hardly alone. Nobody else seems to know either (except the folks in the “pull-out-now” wing, whom you can watch get increasingly furious over the coming weeks as they realize that the Democrats who won the election aren’t that irresponsible).
”
Brad, you’re at least trying to address the issues in Iraq. But you just can’t resist slamming those of us who want to bring our troops home immediately. Even though we’ve been proven correct on every single point when it comes to Iraq we’re still regarded as “irresponsible”.
Ok, I’ll admit bringing the troops home immediately has risks. Every option, including a prolonged stay in Iraq, does too. Bush has put us in a terrible spot. Dave constructs his doomsday scenerio if we withdraw. I don’t buy it. I think things may get worse for a while, but with a bit of proactive diplomacy, in a year or two, the situation in the middle east will settle down. Whatever course of action we ultimately take the Democratic congress is unlikely to give Bush the free hand he’s had until now. And that is a good thing.
Majority opinion is just what it says it is – the shallow opinions of the majority of people formed by their impressions of the world about them. Their impressions of the war waged against us by Islamic fascists is an impression created by and through television news, which is run by aging baby boomers who are still trying to remake every war into the Vietnam they avoided, or serving as willing conduits for anti-American propaganda.
What is important is the correct perception of reality, not how many dummies and cowards hold the wrong opinion.
The Clinton administration, like Carter, chose to pretend the problem could be ignored and would go away, or at least not bother their administration.
The Bush administration accepted the reality, after 9/11, that we can fight our enemies on their lands or on our soil.
Majority opinion is just what it says it is – the shallow opinions of the majority of people formed by their impressions of the world about them.
Lee, is this where you come out of the closet as an anti-democratic facist?
Brad, I don’t think bloggers are buying into your American politics quagmire analysis.
Jimmy Carter made a great point about the justified war in Afghanistan and how we diverted energy and resources from bringing that situation to resolution. I’m afraid you’ll be writing about the mess over there soon.
Hey, Dave and Lee, don’t look now but we’ve got some homegrown, white, rightwing terrorists. Here’s a little news story from the Jackson (TN) Sun. You won’t see it on FNC because it doesn’t mesh with the xenophobic, racist, anti-Muslim hysteria that you two are spoon fed daily.
McKenzie man gets 30 years for bomb plotting
McKenzie man told undercover agents he wanted to detonate bomb
Man gets 30 years for bomb plotting
Demetrius “Van” Crocker of McKenzie, convicted in April of attempting to obtain a chemical weapon and possession of stolen explosives, was sentenced to 30 years in prison Tuesday by U.S. District Judge James Todd in Jackson.
Crocker, who told undercover FBI agents of his desire to explode a briefcase bomb while Congress was in session, was found guilty by a jury in about 90 minutes in April.
The 40-year-old farmhand and father of two was convicted of accepting what he thought were ingredients to make Sarin nerve gas and a block of C-4 explosive from undercover agents in October 2004.
The maximum penalty Crocker could have faced for the convictions would have been a life sentence. Todd did order lifetime supervised release for Crocker once he gets out of prison.
In all, Crocker was convicted on five charges: one count of attempted possession of a chemical weapon, one count of inducing another person to acquire a chemical weapon, one count of possession of stolen explosives, one count of possession of explosive material with intent to harm an individual or damage or destroy a building, and one count of possession of an unregistered destructive device.
During the trial, prosecutors introduced video- and audio-taped conversations that Crocker had with undercover agents, laced with profanity, racial slurs and Crocker’s open hatred of all things to do with the government.
Lee writes:
The Clinton administration, like Carter, chose to pretend the problem could be ignored and would go away, or at least not bother their administration.
The Bush administration accepted the reality, after 9/11, […]
Kind of selective in your citations aren’t you, Lee?
Lessee, there was St. Ronnie Reagan who cut and ran from Beruit immediately after the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marine barrcks which killed 241 servicemen.
It seems that St. Ronnie and Ollie North thought sending missiles to Iran in order to illegally arm Central American thugs was a good idea.
The current crop of Bushies were so worried about Muslim terrorists that Darth Cheney couldn’t find the time to organize his terrorist task force until 9/12/01.
Condi Rice’s top worry prior to 9/11/01 was the anti-missile shield– or maybe the best shoe sales. Sometimes it’s hard to tell since she demoted Richard Clark and declined meetings about Osama bin Laden with outgoing Clinton security people.
I’m sure that I could dig up some ways that Daddy Bush ignored Muslim terrorism if I tried.
The above should serve to point out your partisan hackery, though.
I suppose that if Brad had more space he would have elaborated more on his view that success in the Iraq war is necessary in order for the US to be a democratic nation. Of course, the situation is exactly the opposite: we became involved in the Iraq war precisely because our system is no longer really democratic, and it hasn’t been for decades. We still have elections in America, but the candidates in large measure are bought and paid for long before the people who do actually vote go to the polls and make a choice between the lesser of two evils. America is a very different country from the one it was in its heyday during the 40s, 50s, and 60s, and arguably, it’s a much worse country save for the civil rights movement and the acceptance of the idea of the equality of women. Otherwise, in my view, it has been totally downhill.
The decline beset us because we returned to our old ways and we began making the same mistakes that our not so distant ancestors made prior to the Great Depression. There are differences between our current system and the capitalist system that drove America into the ground in the 1930s, but still, the problem now is the same as the problem was then-capitalism is inherently and egregiously unfair. Capitalism and democracy are diametrically opposed to one another. True democracy gives power to the people. Capitalism gives power to a tiny fraction of the population, and even then, capitalism often bestows power to the least ethical members of the society. Ethical people don’t entrench themselves at the top of a wealth aggregating pyramid scheme at the expense of everyone else. Ethical people don’t constantly lie, cheat, and backstab their way to the top. Ethical people don’t call corporate meetings to spin their evil deeds as somehow being beneficial to the workers that they are screwing over. Ethical people don’t take more than their fair share. 80% of the people are carrying the load for a fabulously wealthy, freeloading entrepreneurial class of white-collar criminals who control just about every major institution in the country. The last disastrous six years are a consequence of a de-facto plutocracy’s political whims as embodied by a frat boy turned CEO. We’ve all been subject to the corporate state-who knew that things would have to get this bad before even a rather modest change in the balance of power would offer any hope whatsoever.
The concept of supposed meritocracy was reintroduced in the early sixties as a fair way to determine who would get society’s goodies. Yet, meritocracies inevitably devolve into aristocracies because the entire point of demonstrating one’s “merit” is to obtain the power and privilege that meritocrats have ostensibly opposed ab intitio. By the early 1980s, the US had already converted to a full blown educational “merit” system that in reality doled out privilege to people who wanted to take higher slots within capitalism. Right wing capitalists made an unholy alliance with centrist meritocrats to make the mess that we have today. In the process, the concept of service was removed from the national discourse via the corporate media. Servants don’t take more than their masters, and the entire notion of serving while simultaneously accepting a privileged status is just as bad if not worse than exploiting people using capitalism. Servants should work harder and take less than everyone else. No wonder that the leaders of the Democratic Party quit talking in earnest about service many decades ago. You can’t serve by taking more.
Mark, look at a few general facts and then rethink your total dissatisfaction at our current free market system.
1. World’s largest economy
2. Nearly 97% of Americans employed (in addition to supporting employment of 15 or so million illegals)
3. All time record levels of home ownership
4. World’s highest level of car ownership
5. Other than the oil producing nations, world’s lowest energy prices
6. The epicenter for world business for invention, technology, marketing, research, etc. (can anyone name a Chinese invention besides paper?)
7. By far the most generous nation of people on Earth to charitable causes and the poor
8. Most advanced medical systems in the world
I could go on but by now if you dont get the point you are refusing to get it.
Dave, we do well in some areas, not so well in others. Our life expectancy is far below that of Japan and many western European nations. We have very high murder and traffic fatality rates. And we work far more hours than other industrial nations. American’s have shown a great deal of arrogance toward the rest of the world during the Bush years and it’s costing us dearly. We’re now embroiled in a disasterous quagmire in Iraq which even Brad admits we have no answers for. With the Democrats in charge of congress I’m hoping we can return to the days of positive dialog with the rest of the world as we saw during the Carter and Clinton years. I sure felt safer then.
1. Carter deployed Marines to Beruit under a limited UN agreement for the purpose of evacuating US citizens. They were staging for transport back to the US when Muslim terrorists bombed their barracks. When the new President Reagan let the withdrawal proceed, Democrats were big supporters. Today, Democrats lie about “Reagan’s cut and run”.
2. Reagan did not sell, trade or give missiles to Iran. Reagan was secretly supplying moderates in Iran with access to medical supplies and other things the Ayatollah radicals could not get, in order to build up support for the moderates in a future election. Democrats sabotaged America’s efforts at diplomacy out of partisan hatred for Reagan.
3. Democrats at the same time supported socialism and tried to block Reagan from enforcing the Monroe Doctrine against Soviet arming of Marxists in Central America. They openly supported the communist Ortega brothers in Nicaragua, just as Clinton restored the deposed communist butcher Aristide to power in Haiti.
Dave, are you sure #4 is something the US should be proud of?
Sorry, Lee, you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
The U.S. Marines in Lebanon were part of an international peacekeeping force established in 1982 to tamp down the Lebanese civil war. (Note that Reagan took office in January, 1982.)
-from Wikipedia
Despite the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut, the MNF’s mission was far from over. […] Then, from September 16-18, hundreds of Palestinians were murdered by Lebanese Christians in the Sabra and Shatila massacres. This incident prompted U.S. President Ronald Reagan to organize a new MNF with France and Italy. On September 29, this new force entered Beirut, with about 1,200 Marines. Their mission was to help the new Lebanese government and army with stability.
[…]
On April 18, 1983, the U.S. embassy in West Beirut was bombed, killing 63 people. This blast was a clear sign of opposition to the MNF.
===
About St. Ronnie the Strong’s reaction to the 10/23/83 barracks bombing…
===
President Ronald Reagan called the attack a “despicable act” and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said there would be no change in the U.S.’s Lebanon policy. […] U.S. Vice President George Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. “would not be cowed by terrorists.”
In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions. [Even the craven, cowardly French were tougher than St. Ronnie!] President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[3] But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.
Besides a few shellings, there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans. […]
The Marines were moved offshore where they could not be targeted. […]
RTH, in the name of accuracy I should point out that Reagan took office in January 1981, not ’82. I was going to point these factual discrepancies out but since it was Lee decided not to waste my time.
Thanks, Bud. That was my personal error. Mea culpa. RR was elected in November, 1980 and inaugurated in January, 1981, according to MSN Encarta.
Also from MSN Encarta:
In 1982, in an effort to strengthen the Christian government, Reagan sent marines to Lebanon. In October 1983 a bomb killed nearly 250 marines and other U.S. service members at their Beirut headquarters. Reagan withdrew the surviving marines early in 1984.
[…]
In November 1986 newspapers reported that the U.S. government had secretly sold weapons to Iran in order to win Iranian support in freeing U.S. hostages held by Lebanese terrorists friendly to Iran. This incident was particularly embarrassing because Reagan had taken a strong public stand against governments that supported terrorism and had repeatedly urged other governments not to deal with nations that supported terrorists.
Newspaper accounts also revealed that the United States had diverted profits from the weapons sales to help the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The diversion of the funds was a direct violation of the Boland amendment, a law that had forbidden U.S. military aid to the Contras. Reagan denied any knowledge of the diversion of funds to the Contras, and he claimed that the weapons deal with Iran was an attempt to open a dialogue with moderate elements in the Iranian government and did not involve negotiations over hostages in Lebanon. Nevertheless, Reagan later called the weapons deal “a mistake.”
=======
So RR admitted that the U.S. sold weapons to Iran rather than medical supplies.
(can anyone name a Chinese invention besides paper?)
Posted by: Dave | Dec 4, 2006 3:15:29 AM
I leave here for months and this guy is just as moronic (possibly more so) as when I left. Here…let me take a stab at this one…
Off the top of my head: papermaking, printing techniques, fireworks, gunpowder,compasses, plows, horse harnesses, ship rudders, crossbows, rudimentary firearms, and various forms of martial arts and philosophy.
Just to name a few inventions of those lazy, unindustrious Chinese! I mean, considering this evidence, what were they doing for thousands of years?!?
Get off the Rush of crack already and sober up, man. Please save your total ignorance for that crowd at the Music City Bowl where it will not only be appreciated, but also seconded, thirded, fourthed, et cetera.
Would anyone like to join me for an open discussion about Iraq without all the name calling? As an “irresponsible” advocate for withdrawel I’m open to some ideas for salavage something from this horrendous mess before we leave. Any plan that leaves American troops in Iraq longer than 18 months is unacceptable to me. We simply MUST find a way out of this mess.
Allright, Cap A came out from under his pet rock, or someone left the village gate open and the idiot escaped. I already said paper, doofus. As for the other items, other than chopsticks, they are mainly in dispute as to whether the Chinese invented them or knocked them off. They are good at that. All of your list of inventions are from a thousand or more years ago. How about lately Mr. Yoyo?
But I am glad you are back!!!!!
Phillip – Having the world’s highest % of car ownership is a statistic to celebrate. That is partly what makes us the most mobile and free citizens of the world. OTOH, we are consuming a goodly portion of the fuel but that is only temporary until a breakthrough occurs on a different fuel technology. But cars and Americans, what a combination. Our whole society has been shaped by the auto, from the Model T to the 57 Chevy to the Mustang and even the geezer cars for the aging boomers. What other nation could come up with a Humvee?
Hurl and bud suffer from the false history put out by liberals in schools and the media, and now in the fabrications of Wikipedia. They are too young to have been around when the events occurred, making them willingly gullible targets for anti-American, socialist and Democrat disinformation.
The fact is that President Carter sent the Marines to Lebanon under a UN resolution of 1978.
For a fully footnoted history, here is the synopsis by the Rand Corporation:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF129/CF-129.chapter6.html
I encourage anyone who still parrots the lies about “arms for hostages” to educate themselves and find that there were no arms traded Iran. The hostages were released as soon as Carter was evicted by the American voters.
Having a society built on individualized transportation with citizens spending hours a week on the road pumping CO2 into the air is largely a function of suburban based necessity and not prosperity – especially considering the increasing proportion of the working poor.
Jimmy Carter – likely the worst president of all time. His legacy:
The misery index.
The spawning of the militant Iranian mullahs.
Military so weak that our own embassy employees were taken hostage by a third world bunch of savages.
Double digit unemployment.
Double digit inflation.
Billy Beer.
Panama Canal giveaway.
Gasoline lines and gas purchases every other day by law.
He lusted in his heart. What a numskulled thing to tell his constituents.
An out and out failure as President now an old fool roaming the world as an anti-semite Jew hater. Disgraced ex-President.
Jimmy Carter has written several books. George Bush has read almost as many. More, if you count the ones he’s colored in.
Carter – literate, compassionate, a REAL Christian, intelligent, introspective, charitable, self-made, self-sacrificing. everything our current buffoon is incapable of.
Sure, Carter was the right man at the right time post Nixon and Ford… The inflation that plagued his Presidency was already begun during the Ford years (remember WIN buttons? Whip Inflation Now… i.e. Policy Via Sloganeering — sort of like “Mission Accomplished”)
It will be interesting to see what Bush’s approval rating is when he leaves office compared to Carter’s.
Phillip, to go way back up to what you said, near the top, the fact that you “see no way that the American people will stand for the idea of sending MORE troops to Iraq” is the one great cause of my own growing pessimism about this situation. Sending more troops is (and has been since the beginning) the only way to salvage this enterprise.
bud would rather NOT salvage it, but fails to see how catastrophic the consequences would be if we do fail. This isn’t Vietnam; the result would be far more dire and sweeping across the region.
Finally, was it Mark who talked about the decline in democracy in America? Hardly. This nation was founded to be a republic, but the surging forces of pure democracy — overnight polls, 24-hour shouting on TV, etc. — make it nearly impossible for our delegated representatives to make sound decisions without risking huge political costs — which too few are ready to do.
Steve, it was Dave who boasted W would go down in history as one of the greatest presidents of all time.
Carter’s legacy is summed up best by the biographer Brinkley – Unfinished Presidency. He details Carter’s tremendous work since 1980 as his greatest contributions to the world. E.g. his work on controlling river blindness in Africa.
Don’t overlook the significance of the peace between Israel and Egypt. If I’m not mistaken, Egypt was the big daddy on the Arab block in those days and they’ve had lasting peace with Israel since Jimmy’s effort.
Contrast that with W’s lasting legacy of a Vietnam styled quagmire on steroids and an incomplete rebuilding of Afghanistan which amounts to an incomplete resolution to 911. Even Rummy admitted the war effort is not working. That leaves Dave and W who think the war is going well.
BTW, let’s see if Dave characterizes Rummy and a “cowardly cut and run pacifist” as he does with democrats who proposed the same shift as Rummy offered the day before the election. Of course, this would contradict his evaluation of Rummy as doing a heckuva job.
List of those who did a “heckuva job” according to the Decider:
Michael Brown
Rummy
Bolton
Putin (I looked into his eyes and got a sense of his soul)
Tenet
Porter Goss
Al-Maliki
People that Carter thought were/are doing a great job:
Castro
Anwar Sadat
Noriega
Kim Il Jung
Does anyone need more of these names to get the point?
After Castro, replace Sadat with Arafat.
Brad, it would certainly be nice to “salvage” something in Iraq, but any hope of a stable, Jeffersonian style democracy that serves as a beacon of hope for the region is looong gone. The best we can hope for is a brief, contained civil war that results in a semi-stable regime that isn’t openly hostile to the U.S. and doesn’t spread to other parts of the region. Depending on your particular world view our continued occupation either (1) exacerbates the problem by preventing the various factions from bringing this thing to a head or (2) keeps the situation from spiraling completely out of control and spreading to Iran and other places.
Ultimately we will leave Iraq. Ultimately the situation will resolve itself one way or the other. I believe our best hope is to withdraw, relatively quickly, and maintain a significant troop presence in the region. That would help contain the situation. Perhaps the Iranians and Syrians can facilitate a bit of stability. Perhaps not. But in my view we cannot improve the situation. Nor would a withdrawl lead to the bleak outcome that Brad is so certain would occur.
Carter deployed Marines to Beruit under a limited UN agreement for the purpose of evacuating US citizens. They were staging for transport back to the US when Muslim terrorists bombed their barracks. When the new President Reagan let the withdrawal proceed, Democrats were big supporters.
Lee, please point out where Ambassador Kelly’s analysis of Beruit, 1982-1984 supports any of the “facts” that you allege above.
Lee’s assertions take revisionist history to a whole new level. Here are some others:
1. Cherokee indians in Florida attempted to herd thousands of Americans to “white” reservations in Oklahoma. President Andrew Jackson intervened to stop this catasrophe.
2. The Roman Empire was an outcroping of Aztec culture.
3. George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott, was the first person to fly solo across the across the Atlantic Ocean.
4. Adolf Hitler established the first Jewish state in Europe. This is known today as Ben-Austria. This successful nation has fostered good will between the Jewish and Arab people for decades.
5. After their victory at Gettysburg, which destroyed the Army of the Potomac, Lee’s Army of Virginia captured most of Pennsylvania and forced the defeated U.S. government to sign the now famous Treaty of Pittsburg, recognizing Confederate Independence. All slaves were freed 6 months later. Today the CSA is recognized as a beacon of progressive thought througout the world.
Don’t forget the time when Lee’s ancestor, Walker, British Ranger, shoved everyone who was patiently awaiting a boat to shore out of the way in order to become the first to set foot on what would result in the Roanoke Island settlement.
The word “Croatoan” found carved onto the bark of a tree there was a feeble attempt by this same dandy to create America’s first expressed racial slur…and to symbolically thumb his nose at nature in the process.
Brad, I’d almost agree with you about sending more troops if America would send enough so as to guarantee success. The problem with proposals like Graham’s 30,000 more troops is, I don’t think it’s enough. You know the saying, throwing good money after bad? Well, it would horrible to throw more good lives away in futility. Graham’s proposal would just result in more young Americans dead, and quite likely the same outcome. From what I can tell, and I’m no expert, I think you’d need 150,000 more troops and turning Iraq into a police state as it was under Saddam to completely quell the violence. Are we ready to do that?
Partition as favored by Biden is starting to sound better and better to me. Kurds like us, right? How about we withdraw to Kurdistan and maintain some presence there to balance out the chaos of the failed Iraq state and the threat from Iran? Can Kurdistan not become the “example” for the Middle East the Bush Administration wanted all along, a democracy smack-dab in the middle of the region?
Brad, you say failure means “the result would be far more dire and sweeping across the region.” I hear that a lot but I suspect that it’s a line people parrot without really thinking about it. Iraq without American troops might be a hotbed for terrorism, but isn’t it one now WITH American troops there? Wouldn’t most of the violence in a post-occupation Iraq be between Sunnis and Shias struggling for control?
Out of Iraq, we could redouble efforts in Afghanistan, where the real Al-Qaeda/Taliban threat still exists. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Sure, some terrorists could make preparations from Iraq to hurt us, but isn’t it ALWAYS going to be the case that in this day and age, a handful of people plotting virtually anywhere in the world can prepare a terror plot against us? So isn’t it a matter of intelligence operations and good police work more than military operations, which can never eliminate all terrorist threats?
Yes, reinforcing the Afghan effort would be a VERY good thing. We need more missions of the sort that South Carolina’s 218th Brigade is set to undertake.
And yes, I’d be a whole lot more comfortable with 150,000 more, but I don’t know where they’d come from. We simply don’t have the same size military we had in 1991, which is why we should have finished the job then.
Speaking of “then,” Bush pere and Baker didn’t want to create the very situation we have now — and theirs was, in 1991 terms, was the “prudent” approach, to use a Dana Carveyism.
And what is that situation? It is one that you would think opponents of the Iraq war would be the first to recognize: An extremely dangerous power vacuum that, in the absence of U.S. and British military power, would collapse into a much worse meltdown, with no one force strong enough to gain dominance and bring about order — with the possible exception of militant shiites.
And if they managed to dominate — at least outside the Sunni triangle — that would Mr. Israel-shouldn’t-exist-and-I’ll-soon- have-the-nukes-to-back-that-up over in Tehran in charge of the situation.
Of course, with Syria in a position to exert dominance over the Sunnis, and Syria being such pals with Iran these days, the two nations could probably reach an accommodation to divide Iraq — minus the Kurds — into their respective spheres of influence, and restore order that way. It’s hard to imagine the terms of such a pact being the sort that many Americans would call “good.”
Regarding the Kurds, we have another whole set of teetering dominoes there. We have enough trouble with Turkey now, without antagonizing them with a more independent Kurdish nation on their border. Think about the Pope’s visit there, trying to cool the Christian-Muslim faceoff. He even backed them for EU membership, sort of. Turkey is a country that teeters. Better to have them moving more toward the West than farther away.
Back to the number of troops — yes, a couple or three corps would be very helpful, if we had that many troops. But we don’t.
We’re going to have to have a draft, and not for the ridiculous reasons Rangel proposes.
But it’s very, very unlikely to come about now. Bush should have called for it after 9/11, just as he should have called for a national sacrificial effort to make ourselves independent of foreign oil (as Biden so eloquently explains). But we didn’t. And now the political partisans have torn at each other over the past five years to such an extent that the political consensus necessary to raise the forces that we need to do what must be done in Iraq and Afghanistan seems light years away.
That consensus is not likely to emerge while Bush is president. So we have the bitterly unpalatable situation of having to hang on until we have a leader the nation can unite behind (and we’d all better start praying for that right away).
I don’t care whether it’s McCain, Obama, or somebody I haven’t heard of (just please, not a divisive figure like some of those showing interest). We must have someone who can articulate the importance of this struggle in a way that most Americans can get behind it. Because the kinds of choices we need to make cannot be made by a divided nation.
Brad, why don’t you volunteer to “articulate the importance of this struggle.” Exactly who are we struggling with? You’re right about one thing I cannot understand exactly what it is that makes the “struggle” in Iraq worth the exhorbitant cost. But I do know what it’s not:
1. It’s not a struggle to prevent someone from conquering the United States. With our huge military budget it’s laughable than anyone would contemplate that.
2. It’s not a struggle to save lives. We’re losing many thousands of lives in Iraq so to just break even we’d have to prevent a 9-11 sized attack every 3 years.
3. It’s not a struggle to protect the economic interests of the U.S. Given the disasterous results we’ve had protecting the oil fields is it really reasonable to suggest we’d lose anything by losing the oil fields in Iraq? The cost of this war alone is hitting U.S. economic interests hard.
4. It’s not a struggle to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Given the dire security situation these people face on a daily basis it’s hard to imagine how it could get worse.
5. It’s not a struggle to enhance our reputation and respect in the eyes of other nations. We’ve blown a huge amount of the international goodwill that we had in the aftermath of 9-11.
So Brad, here’s your chance. Play presidential candidate for the Unparty and articulate your vision of the importance of this war. Frankly, all I see is how detrimental a continued fight is to our interests. That’s the struggle that I’m having.
Brad,
This thread is one of the best in recent memory on the blog. Lots of good point/ counterpoint and not much partisan sniping. The exchange between you and bud above is a prime example of blogging at its best; you both present well-reasoned, insightful arguments and deliver them graciously.
As to the substance of the question, I think bud gets the better of you. The window of opportunity for success in Iraq has passed. It’s time for a phased withdrawal, making all attempts to have the Iraqis pick up the slack as we draw down.
Then we hope for the best but prepare for the worst. If Iran becomes a nuclear power with hegemony in the region, we’ll deal with it (just as we dealt with the USSR-a situation in which containment and diplomacy triumphed).
The words of John Quincy Adams still speak to us from across the centuries. His advice from 1821 is a sobering, timeless antidote to the cries for more troops:
“She (America) has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….”
Brad Warthen,
I encourage you to do a better job by writing with a point and with clarity and without the “I’m just folks who don’t know nothin but why don’t everybody listen to me” ridiculous affect. I suggest that you practice writing in the style of George Will or William Safire or somebody good who you respect. For goodness sake, if you have a point, please make it without all the rambling and the “we” and “I” and “you” and “my dog” and “I want to take the flag down more than the NAACP does” but I have more respect for the rebels “who stood up for their beliefs by wearing beauregard” than I do for MLK and Rosa Parks. “Baseball stadiums belong wherever I say so my property value can go up, but I dont know nothin bout no economics.” Where’s your sense of professional resposibility?
Very Truly Yours,
Michael Rodgers, Columbia
A couple questions for any and all comers:
We’re looking to bring Iran on board to help the US. How is a member of the Axis of Evil going to be a trusted player in these talks? If they are, then why did we draw the line in the sand with them in the first place?
Is Al-Sadr connected to Iran beyond common Shiite ties?
Who are we fighting in this war? Originally it was “Sadamn” and his army. Then it was Al-Quida insurgents. And now?
If our presence is a lightning rod, what will boosting troop levels do?
BTW, Paul spoke too soon (see the Rodgers post).
I’m sure Mr. Rodgers’ comment was meant to be helpful, but he lost me with the stuff about the ball park, MLK and Beauregard.
Paul is easier to follow. Perhaps it’s his habit of writing in complete sentences with proper punctuation, which complements the quality of his thinking. Dr. DeMarco is a serious correspondent.
I particularly loved that he quoted my favorite founder. The best bit by far was “as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.” Beautiful stuff.
But first among patriots as he was (Jefferson wrote the Declaration, but Franklin and Adams told him what to write), his was a very different country. It was young, with vast potential, and needed nothing from any other nation but to be left alone to grow and develop.
By contrast, I am the child of a nation that has saved the world twice from totalitarianism in the past century, an unchallenged hegemon that has found itself with great responsibility.
Success in Iraq would be daunting under the best of circumstances, but I still believe that only we are holding us back from that that success. We could overcome the other obstacles, complex though they are, if we were not so divided and wearied by our own division.
If we had the political will, we could put a million superbly trained and equipped men in Iraq.
A huge “if,” you might say, and you’d be right. But political certainties can change in the blink of an eye. For instance, we’ve only had our first 9/11. The second, and the third, are yet to come. It’s surprising that they haven’t come already.
I hope they wait until another president is in office, because too many Americans have decided they will never, ever follow this one, and that makes for an extremely dangerous situation.
At the same time, how can we take another two years of things as they are now. We can’t leave Iraq, but how can we hold out long enough to pull ourselves together?
I don’t know.
We still need some smart diplomacy, people who know the need for:
1) The threat of the proper use of power
2) Understanding honor/shame based cultures, and how to approach them.
3) The need for mediation, and how effective a good mediator can be.
4) Shrewd in using friends and not-so good friends to balance off each other.
Easy to say from the office chair, but I will surmise that, had we stopped and done some of this first, a lot of people would still be alive.
The cowboy approach to foreign affairs is really not always the smartest.
“I particularly loved that he quoted my favorite founder.”
John Quincy Adams wasn’t a founder, you idiot.
Once again you demonstrate the laziness that has contributed so greatly to your failure as a journalist.
“Success in Iraq would be daunting under the best of circumstances, but I still believe that only we are holding us back from that that success. We could overcome the other obstacles, complex though they are, if we were not so divided and wearied by our own division.”
In other words, it is the weakness of the American people that prevent’s Warthen’s dreams of American hegemony from being realized. The American people are NOT divided, as the Congressional vote demonstrated. The American people are pretty solidly lined up against continuing our glorious adventure in Iraq. They have made a clear and sober analysis of the costs, evaluated them against the potential benefits, and decided that it is time to extricate ourselves from Iraq as best we can and deal with the consequences of that extrication as best we can. The American people believe that the consequences of staying in Iraq will be worse than the consequences of leaving.
Warthen doesn’t want to admit that any viewpoint opposed to its own can have arisen from clear reflection. So he blames the American people’s lack of appetite for an unending involvement in Iraq on a “lack of will,” caused by “division” and “weariness of division,” ignoring the fact that, on this issue, the American people are NOT divided. They are united, but their viewpoint differs from Warthen’s.
EVERYTHING Warthen has said about the war has been wrong. EVERY prediction he has made has been wrong. EVERY prediction made in opposition to the war has been proven right. Yet somehow, he clings to the notion that the American people have abandoned their previous support of the war because of reflexive opposition to Bush, because of a failure to understand the issues. Warthen ignores the possibility that the American people understand the issues just fine, and it is Warthen who fails to understand, or to address, the issues. Warthen’s argument is an argument from authority, with himself as the authority. But in order to make an argument from authority, you must, at a minimum, provide evidence that the authority on whom you rely for support isn’t the stupidest human being who ever lived, and Warthen has not provided that evidence.
Here is some of what Russ Feingold said before the vote on the Iraq war resolution:
********************************************
In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we’re being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don’t have answers to these questions. We’re being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we’ve been given.
…
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally-supported military action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly and time consuming, could involve the occupation — the occupation, Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest in moderate states that calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we need much more information about how we propose to proceed so that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
…
I do believe that the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after. And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
So, Mr. President, I believe that to date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President’s request understandable, but it doesn’t make it wise.
I am concerned that the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I fear it could have the opposite effect.
And so this moment — in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action — this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts.
…
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we don’t know where the ship is sailing.
********************************************
Feingold said all these things, and more, in 2002 – more than four years ago. EVERY CONCERN that he raised has been proven to be amply justified. EVERY drawback to the war that he presented has become a reality. EVERYTHING HE SAID WAS RIGHT. EVERYTHING WARTHEN SAID WAS WRONG.
So whom should we believe? Warthen, who believes that because he can envision a glorious outcome for “our vital mission in Iraq”, no cost is too great to bear, so long as that cost is borne by persons other than himself? Or Feingold, and others like him, who at the time made numerous predictions, all of which have come to pass?
“f we had the political will, we could put a million superbly trained and equipped men in Iraq.”
But we don’t have the political will. And the reason we don’t have the political will isn’t because the American people are divided, or weak, or cowardly. It’s because putting a million superbly trained and equipped men in Iraq would be stupid.
The American people understand the issues in Iraq. They understand the costs. They want out. It won’t be easy, it won’t be pretty, but it is the best of a number of bad choices.
Warthen wants to impose endless sacrifices on others so that he won’t have to admit that he was wrong.
What on earth has Iraq to do with 9/11? What qualifies as “success” in Iraq?
If some Islamic country conquers the United States, will it matter if they send a million or even ten million soldiers to enforce their occupation? Would we ever willingly acquiesce to their demands of becoming an Islamic state? Would we willingly throw out two thousands years of Western culture, history, art, science, and philosophy for the sake of venerating the Prophet? Would we accept becoming second-class citizens in our own country as the de-facto vassals of an Islamic kingdom/aristocracy? Wouldn’t we view the people who aid and abet the occupiers as traitors worthy of the most severe punishment possible? In order for their occupation to be “successful”, they would probably have to kill all of us first.
Brad,
it’s not our “own division” that is holding us back. It’s fatigue from troops serving up to five tours of duty. It’s depreciation of our resources from constant desert war fare. There’s a need to keep troop readiness for N. Korea and Iran (unless the latter is no longer in the Axis of Evil as they come to bail us out).
The “will of the nation” as seen in our efforts to “save the world twice” was spawned by a critical mass of genuine need – to fight countries attacking and taking over other countries. We had it in Iraq I, but not now.
Your “was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor” monologues are eliciting the same reaction as in the movie. All that remains is for you to lead a solo charge out the door.
Randy, the troops you call fatigued are re-upping at record levels. Observe the facts, not what CNN would like you to believe. And Brad is right, Pennsylvania alone licenses over 2 million deer hunters a year, just in one state, millions of armed and capable militia. I can gurantee you tha if the president announced today that he wanted volunteer militia to head to Iraq to function under the auspices of the US military, the left in this nation’s Congress would fight it to the death. Illegal, violation of constitution, secret police, blah, blah, blah. Count on it.
Brad Warthen,
I hope for you to live up to your professional responsibility by encouraging e pluribus unum instead of announcing your “want to declare the capital city a lost cause and withdraw immediately.” The central issue of our time, and one reason we are under fire in Iraq, is how we value life lived and life lost. President Bush says that we must stay in Iraq because leaving would mean that the lives lost were lost without purpose. Is this true? What did Lincoln say at Gettysburg? Why is the Confederate flag still flying in Columbia? Did the Confederate soldiers die without purpose?
We must understand who were the heroes and who lived up to their responsibility. Heroes in leadership positions act as MLK did, and heroes in regular positions act as Rosa Parks did. In contrast, Jefferson Davis encouraged rebellion and war. He was irresponsible to do so, and far too many lives were lost. However, the participants in regular positions on both sides acted heroically while fighting to defend union, home, and family. We can value life lived and life lost and still make clear distinctions about right and wrong.
You are in a position of authority, and your opinion may sway people. I believe your tireless (and possibly self-serving) fight against the proposed baseball stadium in the Sandhills area influenced people. I believe that your criticism of the NAACP’s boycott (in your article about Moore, Sanford and NAACP) is wrong. Boycotts are sometimes necessary. Frankly, I consider the boycott more of a news service, saying, “The people of SC apparently want it known to everyone that African-Americans are and will be treated poorly here; tourists are advised to spend their money elsewhere, where they will be appreciated.”
I believe that your article on Sanford and Floyd presents a bias that is pro-Confederate (I recall a mention of beauregard or somesuch from that article) and that the State newspaper could do a lot more than it does towards getting the flag down (contrary to your claim in your Moore, Sanford and NAACP article).
Finally, returning to the article at hand, I don’t think that you should say “our boy either can’t deliver or won’t.” Please use “man” instead of “boy.” Also, I prefer “president’s father” instead of “president’s daddy.” If you want to emulate Charles Kuralt or Maureen Dowd or Kathleen Parker, go ahead. If you want to emulate George Will or William Safire or Anna Quindlan or Leonard Pitts, go ahead. Whatever you want to do is OK, but I don’t think your current style makes for good writing. You seem like you exercise good editing decisions — how much do you edit your own work; do you ask others to edit it?
Thank you for your attention, and yes, I do mean to be helpful. I have taken the time to write this post because I think you have the tools, intellect, and interest to do an excellent job of writing on the opinion page. You have an excellent leadership position, and you can use it wisely to say whatever you want to say clearly and concisely. You seem like a very responsible and caring person and you have my best wishes for continued success.
Very Truly Yours,
Michael Rodgers, Columbia
Russ Feingold is my hero. As a father of a 14 year old son I’m flabbergasted that anyone would advocate a return to the draft. The very thought that my child could be subject to forced incarceration in some needless, mindless war of imperialist occupation such as Iraq is infuriating. And if we used our military responsibly we wouldn’t even be talking about draft.
Mary, you’re half right about the American people. They haven’t fully come around to the correct position on Iraq, withdrawal, but they’re moving in that direction. We haven’t reached a “critical mass” yet that would force us to leave, but it’s coming. The sad part is that many thousands of people will die needlessly in the meantime.
bud, Brad is just the personification of Santanyana’s dictum. Neither he nor the ideologically blinkered neo-cons grasp the lessons of Vietnam. (Of course, Bush’s “intellectual incuriousity” and historical ignorance account for his apparent stupidity.)
Brad even lived through Vietnam but can’t grasp the limits of military power which fostered the Powell Doctrine. Apparently he was too young to intellectually grapple with the issues but old enough to be imbued with the stupidity of sacrificing tens of thousands of lives in order to demonstrate our “national will” in a hopeless quagmire.
Brad and Bush are perfect bookends: distant, shallow, cheerleaders for a bloodbath but without any tangible investment in the meatgrinder.
I generally try to avoid merely cut-and-paste of the words of others here, but a reader’s response to one of Andrew Sullivan’s blogposts expresses very succinctly what I was not quite able to verbalize above. He or she writes:
“An exhausting fight between Sunni and Shia thugs with their Al Qaeda and Iranian allies will set some of our enemies upon one another. The tragedy, of course, is that thousands more innocent Iraqis will die in the process, and we’ll be partly culpable.
Still, we have to recognize that Zarqawi (remember him?) succeeded in his goal of preventing our preferred outcome in Iraq, by provoking a civil war. And, we should take solace from the fact that this strategy came at a price for Al Qaeda. By bringing the sectarian schism within Islam to the forefront, Zarqawi demoted Al Qaeda from an almost mystical movement that stood up to the west in a fight for an idealized Islamic world, to just another brutal, sectarian faction killing Muslims in Iraq. He’s also taken the Islamic jihadist focus off the United States and even made a Syrian-Iranian alliance more difficult over the long term.”
In other words, chaos and civil war are horrible outcomes for Iraqis for which we (well, Bush and pals) are responsible; but the net impact on America itself may not be as dismal as Brad and others fear.
In other news, congrats to Mary Cheney and her partner Heather on their good news!
Whatever happened to Lex? Is he still mourning the election?
Several people have made excellent points on this blog:
Phillip pointed out that if we leave Iraq we can focus more attention on Afghanistan.
Paul, quoting J. Q. Adams (a 9 year old founding father) showed how even 175 years ago wise men understood the risks of foreign adventurism.
Herb made some fine points on the importance of diplomacy and understanding foreign culture.
Mary reminded us that there were people who understood the extreme risks of going into Iraq back in 2002.
Michael reminded us that respect for the soldiers lost in Iraq does not require the useless loss of additional human life.
RTH correctly pointed out that the lessons of Vietnam have been largely forgotten (or never learned) by those in power.
Randy explained how we are reducing our military capabilities that may be needed if some new trouble spot suddenly erupts.
Mark points out that we are an occupying power and that people in an occupied nation do not cotton to the occupiers.
Good job everyone. There is just so much wrong with this war it’s becoming far too easy to find ways to criticize it and impossible to defend it. I feel optimistic that the tide is turning.
Mary,
Thanks for the Feingold speech. His remarks are prescient and well expressed. I believe many people had some of the same thoughts when we invaded Iraq in 2003 but were willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. We thought (usually to ourselves), “Surely our leaders know what they are getting us into. There must be an imminent threat (ie WMDs. terrorist camps, etc.) that justify this aggressive move.” Tragically that was untrue and now we are waist deep and steadily sinking.
But Mary, please don’t be such a sore winner-it doesn’t become you.
Dave, link to the evidence of our troops re-upping in record levels please. I find that very interesting.
The hunters from Pennsylvania will do a better job in Iraq than our trained soldiers with the high tech weaponry? I’m sure they are salivating at the idea…but why then have they not joined our all volunteer army?
[Sorry, entire post is cut & paste from About.com]
Vietnam veteran and Chair of History & Politics at Converse College Dr. Joe P. Dunn has penned a thoughful essay, The Tragedy of Unlearned Lessons. He compares the current President Bush with President Johnson, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld with McNamara. He also cautions that Lebanon has changed things.
Dunn writes:
We have one-third of our available combat forces committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, one-third just returned and awaiting redeployment (often for third tours), and one-third immediately preparing to go. This strain on our limited manpower cannot go on endlessly.
Moreover, the administration has failed to provide adequate funding for equipment replacement. In the harsh physical environments, equipment is rapidly degraded and demands repair and replacement.
The administration has provided approximately half the funding necessary for replacement tanks, vehicles, and other necessities. Reserve forces have been stripped of vital equipment already so many units train without the infrastructure that they will need on the ground. The Joint Chiefs report that not one of our Army reserve units meets preparedness standards to go into combat.
General Pace on Fox News – “(The high re-enlistment rate) shows their pride in what they’re doing and their understanding of how important it is,” the general said. “It is absolutely true that for those units that have served overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, that their re-enlistment rates are the highest of all of our armed forces.”
On top of this, recruiters are meeting or exceeding their goals for new recruits.
Our soldiers on the ground know they are kicking terrorists’ butts. They just want the green light to go finish off the last remnant of 15,000 terrorist holed up in Sadar City.
Who’s stopping our soldiers from “kicking terrorists’ butts,” Lee?
Our soldiers have been leased by overblown propaganda about prisoner abuse which has been used as propaganda by our enemies.
Our soldiers are intimidated by prosecutions of soldiers for killing people in firefights.
Our soldiers long ago stopped fighting a war in Iraq, and began a police action, just as the Democrats demanded. That is when we lost momentum and our enemies smelled the same lack of backbone as in the Clinton era. Their recruiting efforts play up the cowardice of Democrats, and it works, because they are right.
Yes, Virgini, Iraq really did have WMD.
Iraq’s bio-chem missiles in 2003
The military assessment of Iraq just before the coalition forces invaded in 2003 shows 72 of Iraq’s 120 al-Samoud 2 missiles designed for biological and chemical warheads, to have been found by UN inspectors, with 48 still missing.
– New York Times, March 21, 2003.