23 thoughts on “What The Troops Win, The White House Loses”
A.L.
An excellent analysis of the administration’s reasoning behind the invasion. My personal quibble with your view is that this reasoning is considered to have been a good bet…this notion that a US invasion of a foriegn country, of an Arab state, of a muslim people was likely to have the desired effect of shocking the region’s leaders into behaving in a manner more suitable to US interests. I would have, and did, argue that the opposite effect was more likely. That the limits of our power & reach would be exposed, that it would encourage more and not less radicalism within the muslim world and thus enlarge the pool of potential terrorists, and that it would strain our relationships with the existing elites of the region who would have to justify to their angry mobs why they were supporting such an obvious “satan” as the US.
I know. I know. I know. Hindsight is always 20-20. You’ll just have to take my word (think of me as AP) that I thought this was so obvious BEFORE it actually happened. But really, it just comes down to elemental human psychology: people don’t care much for being invade by foreignors. And unless you are willing to be extremely brutal, which the west no longer is, occupations, invastions, etc. are bound to fail.
But you know, mark, they care even less for dying. I’ll bet if you went to the population of Zimbabwe and asked if they’d mind being invaded and recolonized, they’d ask “how soon?”
And, given a choice between invasion and nuclear war, I’ll take invasion every time (well, every time since WW II, that is).
Is it possible that you are jumping to conclusions, expecting results too fast? A democratic Iraq will seep into the ground water, so to speak. Meme spreading and cultural change has to be given some time, especially for this part of the world where patriarchy extends into the mists of time. What happened to the comparison to Japan and Germany? Hauling up atavistic societies into the modern world is what the Bush Doctirne is all about and therefore it will be a multigenerational task, especially if we do it with care.
Think stress fractures and ground fault slippage. Deposing Saddam and democratizing Iraq might simply have moved us farther up the curve, closer to the tipping point. The cascade might be imperceptable at the moment, and constantly increasing pressure might be all that we need to get past the cusp.
Perhaps after all, A.L. is spot on: that the mental/cultural preparation for undertaking this task has not yet been addressed. The proof is that we are unprepared to be patient… even so is the famed Mr. Danzinger. How can we move the mentality of the patriarchal cultures when we can’t persuade those among us (the leftward Democrats, but everywhere else on the political spectrum) that resisting modernity is resisting life, that doing so is suicidal?
A.L.,
I think that in the both instances, Iraq & Zimbabwe, it would depend upon who you ask. I am sure, e.g., if you were to ask the mothers of those Iraqi’s who were found dead yesterday, or on all the yesterdays of the last 1,100 days, a large percentage of them would prefer to have not been invaded.
But this is all outside the framework of your original piece and my response to it. We were–or so I thought–talking about the likely results of a US invasion of Iraq in terms of what the US hoped it woud achieve. If you want to shift the discussion to whether or not individual Iraqis are now or will be in the future better off, we can do that, too.
If, by bringing up Zimbabwe, you are making the case that you believe that the US can or ought to use its military might around the world to improve the living conditions of those billions who live in oppressed regimes, poverty, illness, desperation, etc., I would argue that, while a nice idea in theory, in practice it seems a road fraught with dangers and unintended consquences. It also seems a little bit arrogant to me, but more of that, probably, another time.
Looking back, I was most worried about Iraq because all of the conversation was on WHY we should go and not HOW we should go. For what it’s worth, as a lib I don’t want to fail in Iraq, I just critized the administration because I was seriously worried about problems blooming on the ground. I think this administration tried so hard to keep a ‘good face’ on politics that they failed to make the neccessary military actions. Instead, the ‘good face’ is preety much eroded and we seem to be in trouble.
I agree that we can’t give up quite yet. The question does become how much more do we invest to possibly make things go right? There are some places I think we can make things get better, but are they worth the cost of doing them half-assed as they are now?
5 — You’ve hit the point where the administration can’t do anything right — not because nothing it does is right, but because, no matter what it does, it will be decried as wrong. If the evil warmongering Bush didn’t try to put a good face on what was going on, he would be decried for being even more evil and warmongering and incompetent than everybody already thought he was. There is no way he was ever going to get an even break from his critics in the aggregate, because they don’t all criticize him for the same reasons, they just all criticize him.
I vote we try to build a national attention span that lasts longer than an edited “reality” TV show, and a national understanding that important things are hard to do, no matter how simply they can be explained.
The problem is that we can’t make things in Iraq work — not because of failures in the policy, but because the Iraqis have to do it themselves. It is damned hard to come out of decades of totalitarianism-arrested ethnic hatred into a pluralistic democratic society. It’s not going to happen overnight, but there are signs that it’s happening. More folks are buying into that notion than not, but the folks who hate that notion are trying to apply the lessons learned in places like Saigon, Beirut and Somalia to disrupt that process. They look at the widely vocalized criticism of the war as a sign that they’re winning, and all they need to do is keep doing what they’re doing a little longer, and we’ll leave.
The folks who believe in that pluralistic democratic society in Iraq, and those who oppose it, both need to see that, despite our differences over how we intend to do that, and our differences over the personal character of the president, we as a people are united behind the notion. Unfortunately, there’s been so much emphasis of the differences that there’s little reason anybody in Iraq should believe that we’re committed to supporting democratic change.
“The folks who believe in that pluralistic democratic society in Iraq, and those who oppose it, both need to see that, despite our differences over how we intend to do that, and our differences over the personal character of the president, we as a people are united behind the notion.”
That’s rich, Blain, really rich. Those of us who opposed the war from the get-go knowing it would almost certainly turn into this mess not only because of the lying clowns that are running the effort but because even in a perfect world the idea was IDIOTIC are now supposed to “Unite behind the notion of a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq”?
In my view, that’s as senseless as uniting around prayer to Jesus Christ as a means out of this mess. As well as being as meaningless in its appeal to irrationality and delusion.
The People of the US are united around a goal….we must leave Iraq and we must do so with all due haste. I cannot abide by the senseless sacrifice of US lives and middle class money for the sake of appearance (“They look at the widely vocalized criticism of the war as a sign that they’re winning, and all they need to do is keep doing what they’re doing a little longer, and we’ll leave.”) or presidential hubris.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that the US would shock and awe the Saudis and the Iranians into scaling back their proven goals. The best the US could and did hope for, and it is still a viable hope, is that the people of the Middle East would act to rein in their leaders/governments. The alternative was outright war with several nations. I, for one, would rather take a chance on Plan A (that war in Iraq could provide a democratic model for the Middle East) rather than jump to Plan B (attack them all).
What you have to say is wrong with the Iraq war is on target, but you miss the real blame for the state we find ourselves in. That was succinctly noted by Blain, the failure belongs at the hands of the gutless portion of the US who have an attention span no longer than a “reality” TV show. The DNC NEVER gave the whole scenario of remaking another country a chance. We were named wrong from the git-go. Bush would have been called wrong by the useful idiots in the DNC and the deranged lunatic fringe that includes the Kos Kidz no matter what he did. If he were to fight the total war that is really needed to win, then he is a Nazi-Hitler-dictator, etc. So, he tried to fight a measured conflict and has now been called wrong for that. What the heck is wrong with you folks on the Left?
Well, I feel that is a self evident answer, you are leftists and have swallowed the Kool-Aid whole. The progressive movement is morally bankrupt and with any luck will expire of it’s own failures in the first half if this century. And, that comes from a former leftist. I was raised by a card carrying commie (Dad) who partnered with a former commie and progressive Democrat (Mom). (When I say this now, it makes me feel like I am saying I was raised by wolves and in a sense I was.) Only after their deaths and 9-11, could I finally come full around to the proper conservative side.
The whole progressive movement has no moral foundation. Oh, they say they are moral, but if you examine their logic and motivations, you will find they have nothing to offer that is logical and complete as a value system. It is all the politics of feel-good. If it plays good in LA, then it must be right.
Back to Iraq. I greatly fear that the people in the US no longer have the fortitude to fight the kind of conflict that is needed to win this long war we find ourselves in the middle of. We did not choose this conflict of cultures, it was chosen by our enemy who has declared we have but two choices, submission or annihilation. I agree, we have two choices. I prefer the annihilation is directed the other way. Col. Peters puts it correctly, we must fight this conflict in such a way as to have our enemy know and admit their own defeat. Nothing else is sufficient. No half measures are allowed. But, the Greatest Generation seems to have given birth to the Softest Generation and that scares the hell out of me.
We must take this fight to the enemy and require submission, their submission to our superiority in war and culture. Only then will they have some chance of coming out the other side of this long war with a proper cultural view of the world and a culture fit for co-habitaion with the rest if the world, but if we do not fight this war in this total manner then we had best get ready to pray five times a day to the muzzeins call. And, Yes, it really is that simple.
We should have hung Saddam a long time ago. But, we are the good guys and let the new Iraqi system try it’s own.
Armed Liberal: “If guaranteeing a “permanent GOP majority” was more important than setting the stage for winning in Iraq — and in retrospect, that certainly appears to have been the case — there is no one to blame but the White House.”
I disagree, and I think there is a far more guilty party, that is the Republican federal legislative majority and its leadership. Unlike George W. Bush, who they did not adequately support on domestic or foreign issues, federal Republican legislators really did seem to think it was all about them, and they could (so they thought) look forward to the personal benefits of incumbency indefinitely. Other than Rick Santorum, none of the republicans who were tossed out in the recent elections will be much missed even by conservatives, much less moderates or liberals. They wasted their chance to make history.
“The Democrats don’t get off scot-free. But this was Bush’s war to win or lose.”
I disagree. It was George W. Bush’s option to find out what Iraqis really wanted. But what they wanted was up to them, not him.
President George W. Bush has a democracy agenda. That means power to the people. That means if the people are your enemies, you are empowering your enemies and the project is broken. As it turned out, for cultural reasons (beginning with Islam), that was the case, and the loss of the war was predetermined.
But the only way to find this out was to give the people power, and see what they would do with it.
This was done.
We should go now.
–
Armed Liberal: “Thanks, Mr. President. Could you do something about that, please?”
8 — Well, then I guess you’re just too brilliant and prescient to waste time with ignorant fools like me. You clearly should not join in supporting a pluralistic and democratic Iraq, since you prefer the totalitarian Iraq that would still exist if those in power had followed your superiour understanding and foresight — no sense in being dishonest. I’d suggest you not bother reading anything else I have to say — anything I might happen to be right on is something you already knew before I did. In fact, I’d stop reading this comment at this period right here ->.
10 — You had me through the first paragraph, and then something happened. I appreciate the support for my first post around here, though, so thanks.
11 — Good emphasis of the point that Iraqis always have and always will bear the main burden of determining their fate. Our job would be “simpler” if we simply determined what their government should be like, and then sent in enough troops to force that outcome to take place. And it would fail miserably, and justifiably. Supporting the Iraqis as they learn how to get along with each other is hard, just like watching a messed-up family learn how to function, only this is on a larger scale. There will be (and have been) false starts and leaps forward and backsliding as they learn by trial and error. I see no reason to think that they are incapable of functioning democratically, but I also see no reason to think that they’re going develop wide-spread trust across their deep divisions quickly nor easily. Again, important things aren’t easy, to paraphrase JFK.
Whether I “join in supporting” a “pluralistic and democratic Iraq” or not is irrelevant to the outcome of the mess there which I take it you may have helped create through your support of Bush. Correct me if I’m wrong, but unless you believe that the Power of Positive Thinking or Faith or Prayer is going to help, then your comments can only be interpreted as yet another effort by the Right wing warmongers to maneuver the opposition into aligning with your misguided plans and warped, violent views of the world.
No thanks.
Yes, I support PEACE and democracy in Iraq. I also support free choice and human rights and global peace and goodwill toward men. So when leaders act against this, like Bush in Iraq, I get angry; doubly so when they pretend that this is or was their goal to begin with. The Iraqis didn’t choose this trajectory…Bush and you chose it for them. They are not happy. Many would choose to return to the relative peace and stability of Iraq under Saddam, even given the brutal manner in which he excercised control over the Iraqi people. That is rather telling, wouldn’t you agree, of the current and projected state of affairs? There is very little evidence that things will end up better off for the majority of Iraqis than before the war, let alone the region, and even less evidence that the US is still (or ever was) in a position to effect this using military force as the primary tool of diplomacy.
Leave it to Bush to make an already bad situation worse.
“Those of us who opposed the war from the get-go knowing it would almost certainly turn into this mess not only because of the lying clowns that are running the effort but because even in a perfect world the idea was IDIOTIC are now supposed to “Unite behind the notion of a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq”?”
Am I the only person who thinks the obvious answwer is “yes”?
Or is somehow having a bunch of lying clowns mean that we want the middle east in chaos?
I mean, if we abandoned our principals because of lying clowns in office, we really wouldn’t have very many left, would we?
I guess fail to understand how knowing that Iraq would turn into a mess somehow relieves a person of their obligation to strive towards universal human rights goals. Or our national strategic interests, a la the ISG, which predicted regional war if Iraq fails.
Hasn’t anybody ever worked for a boss that made stupid decisions? Are there any grown-ups around any more? Seems like some people want everything their way, or they disown the entire system. I guess that’s intellectually easier than actually trying to work through these issues. Hope you sleep well at night, bub.
There was a period after the first elctions alot of libs + media were reevaluating the Bush plan. Time ran a cover “Was Bush Right?”, Jon Stewart admitted that it seemed like Bush might have things right. Peace appeared to be peeking in into the middle east. If things had continued to go down that path, I think the democratic party would have shattered into peices, and Bush would be enjoying very little competition, as was the case ~3 years ago.
But things didn’t work out that way, and Bush deserves much of the blame for the current state, just as he wold have deserved the credit for success.
Yes, many of actions were declared “wrong” by the left party (which is the standard reaction by most opposition parties), but the Republican party controlled all three major segments of the goverment, and have the duty to make tough decisions that many people will not want to hear. Abraham Lincoln was riduculed from all sides: The North thought he was too soft on the South, the South thought he was too Northern. But he made a gut check and made decisions that were unpopular in trying to mend the North & South, and then trying to win the Civil war. That’s what made him a great president.
Bush’s legacy is dependent on the state of Iraq. Nothing I say, or critiques I make, will make any difference in that outcome.
Let me be clear about this, because your criticism that my opposition to Bush’s war plans past and present amounts to abandoning a humanitarian concern for Iraqis is simply unfounded.
What it seems is that you are attempting to equate the President’s war plan, such as it is, with “support for a pluralistic Democratic Iraq”. Tell me, what exactly about the course of the war has led you to believe that establishing this in Iraq is or ever was a priority for Bush? Do you think a troop escalation or more money will help the Iraqis? Even if you do, can you tell me where you think this excess capacity will come from?
The best thing we can do for Iraq and the US is to get out and let the situation continue along its inevitable path…whether for better or worse. We are and will continue to be powerless against the forces that have arisen in the vacuum that is left after Saddam, and I see absolutely no reason why Americans should be left in the crossfire to die like they are now. It’s too late to save this situation with military force, and I can think of about a hundred things to spend the money on that will improve the lives and security of Americans to a much greater degree than this.
That is the approach I see as the most humanitarian for the current situation. The troops on the ground, the American Public, and military leaders also largely agree with this, not to mention a vast majority of our Western allies.
So what exactly is it that you are arguing? An increase in sloganeering among the general public???
I guess fail to understand how knowing that Iraq would turn into a mess somehow relieves a person of their obligation to strive towards universal human rights goals.
Ah yes, our obligation towards “universal human rights goals”. Excuse number 3,523 for the current mess in Iraq is brought to you by Litton Int’l, avionics that care.
“What it seems is that you are attempting to equate the President’s war plan, such as it is, with “support for a pluralistic Democratic Iraq”.”
No I am not. I am asking if you share the same goal of a democratic middle east. You have not answered that question, except to posture on the current administration and current situation.
“The best thing we can do for Iraq and the US is to get out and let the situation continue along its inevitable path…whether for better or worse.”
Logic demands that you, then, describe why the same strategy would not be good for Kosovo? For Sudan? And do so in terms that are non-partisan. What is it about Iraq that deserves to be left alone and in other parts of the world deserve attention?
I’m not arguing anything. In fact, I might be for withdrawing troops if that is the most strategically practical thing to do. I’m a pragmatist, not a moralist.
What ticks me off is either you are for “a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq” or not. LEAVE ASIDE your political BS — is this a goal of yours or not? Because it makes a difference. Even if you want to pull out immediately, the goal makes a difference. People are dying right now for that goal, in whatever mishandled and badly formed war you think it is. What you sound like you are saying is that the old policy of “he’s a dictator, but he’s OUR dicatator”.
It’s one thing to say people died for a noble goal that was inexpertly persued. It’s another to bang the drum of defeat and cowardice and chatter around like a chicken ready to become dinner, or a frightened child homesick for mommy. We’re fairly good at exercising military force in this country, and we have ready manpower and resources. If you want to quit at this level of effort, that’s fine. Saying the entire situation is “unwinnable”, however, is completely dishonest. In my opinion, a better phrase would be “I didn’t want to commit one troop and I don’t support committing any additional ones” which sounds a lot like “I don’t care if it is winnable or not, I’m not going to support it, and when we pull out I’m going to say it was unwinnable”
I’m going to leave aside what the word “win” means, or what the intermediate goals are (1-5 year timeframe). The plan I’ve read shows clearing and holding Baghdad. That’s a concrete goal. Does it support your larger goals or not? Does securing Baghdad, even in a war of idiocy, make a free and democratic middle east any closer? I think the answer is yes, so I support it.
Not that I think democracy is a panacea. In fact, when these guys vote they’re probably going to vote in some ugly stuff. That’s fine. Next time we have to use force I’ll feel better that we’re acting against the people themselves instead of the dictators. I’ll also know that we are one step forward in untangling a mess that has been festering for centuries.
But we could just run away and focus on welfare, or ghetto moms, or literacy rates in high school, or any one of a dozen other inward-looking, self-absorbed, make-you-feel-good-to-hear-them programs. Maybe port security? Playing defense makes zero sense, but it’s a great way to pay off political debts, right?
Well, let’s go through this column, one more time, set apart the lies from the truths.
_I am a liberal Democrat_
In your head – not out here in reality. When 99% of liberal democrats disagree, it’s time to get yourself a new label.
_Those aims, I believed (and still believe) included shocking the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran into throttling back their support for Islamist and Salafist terror, breaking the pattern of state sponsorship that led al-Qaida to become a capable force in the 1990s, and creating a network of Middle Eastern allies against the movement represented by — but not controlled by — al-Qaida._
This is fantasist thinking. As Atrios would say “And a Pony!!” You might as well post your wishes to Santa Claus. It’s been said again and again – but thinking that overthrowing Iraq would lead to any of the above goals, is sheer infantilistic fantasy.
_Where I was flatly wrong was in ignoring the weakness within the U.S. — weakness centered in the White House. The constraints on how we fought and what we were willing to spend were put on by the Bush administration. They chose to emphasize a cheap, light, less-lethal war that would require little political capital._
Well, then you were blind. The administration kept emphasizing how easy and cheap this was going to be. Do you remember the “greeted with flowers” talk? the “no more than 10 billion” talk? If you take your own analysis seriously, then the administration was clear from the beginning, from before the war, in what they were willing to risk. The war, as such, was “sold” falsely. Call it lying (as I do) or call it “selective truth-telling” as those more favorable to the administration do – but really, in this case “the end is in the beginning” is a true statement for the outcome here. And the carefree nature of the beginning was obvious from the get-go.
You can say _that the political support for the Bush administration and for the war effort would collapse, and we’d be paralyzed in the face of future challenges as the political ability to actually do anything evaporates_, but that is what you get when you base a war on half-truths, evasions, lies, and misleading statements.
Interesting that hypocrisy makes no decisions of his own, he simply calls “liar!” and quits.
Perhaps there is some sort of standards for going into a war. Something like a ISO 9000 quality award. After all, unless the political rhetoric meets your standards, no need participating. Better to stand outside and throw rocks.
And BTW, “The administration kept emphasizing how easy and cheap this was going to be” is total BS. Yes, you can find quotes of administration officials and the flowers, but by and large they kept telling us it was going to be long and hard. You’ve been beaten senseless on this many times, HR. A hard head is a terrible thing to have.
And even if somebody told you a war was going to be easy, what are you, an idiot? Didn’t they ever tell you that wars suck? Do you really think that by disparaging the politicians, you can eliminate your civic duty? What world are you from?
Sorry guys, I’ve just had enough of the partisan baloney. I understand having a bad president of an opposing party get us into a ill-conceived war. I do NOT understand people’s reaction to being in that supposed situation. Quite frankly I am ashamed of them.
“What ticks me off is either you are for “a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq” or not. LEAVE ASIDE your political BS.”
I am FOR it.
“– is this a goal of yours or not?”
To reiterate, since I do not think this is a realistic goal, ESPECIALLY because of who is in charge, then my answer to this is NO. It makes no sense to me to set goals that are artificially too high, too costly for their return, or unachievable.
Surely a pragmatist can understand this reasoning.
One hypothesis that helps to explain why a leader would intentionally set vague and unreachable goals springs to mind, however. Let me share it with you.
You mention “paying off political debts”. Well, the war in Iraq has to be the biggest boondoggle ever perpetrated on the US taxpayer….a substantial and shockingly large amount of money is as has been quickly disappearing into the pockets of profiteers…um, I mean “contractors” to an extent unmatched in modern history.
In addition, a “war” gives Bush the power to act like the dictator he wishes he really was. It serves to insulate him well against criticism and partisan manipulation. Without this war, he would be nothing. What other possible reason can you think of to explain his total and utter botching of the job? Either it was an accident and he’s among the biggest fools in history, or its intentional and he’s applying an Orwellian strategy to maintain power and control. Take your pick.
Really isn’t worth going into this, but I’ll do it once –
_Interesting that hypocrisy makes no decisions of his own, he simply calls “liar!” and quits_
Doesn’t address what I’ve said at all, so that can be ignored.
_Perhaps there is some sort of standards for going into a war. Something like a ISO 9000 quality award. After all, unless the political rhetoric meets your standards, no need participating. Better to stand outside and throw rocks._
I nominate this for the best strawman – so far – in WOC 2007!
_A hard head is a terrible thing to have._
Preach it brother! I suggest preaching that speech to a mirror.
_And even if somebody told you a war was going to be easy, what are you, an idiot?_
Oh definitely – mainly for posting on sites like this! 🙂
But to the point – my civic duty, such as it was, was to point out again and again, that the U.S. shouldn’t be invading Iraq based on a pack of lies and half-truths, especially without the backing of the international community, and without an overriding casus belli.
_Sorry guys, I’ve just had enough of the partisan baloney. I understand having a bad president of an opposing party get us into a ill-conceived war. I do NOT understand people’s reaction to being in that supposed situation. _
this wasn’t the thread to discuss “solutions”, and I would say, that the first step to undertaking solutions would be to affix the blame where it lies, and to STOP misdiagnosis -if you don’t know where you’ve been, how can you know where you are going? – which the Danziger article is full of.
Here’s more support for my hypothesis. Thought you might be interested in reading it.
By James Gordon Meek
New York Daily News
Washington – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the New York Daily News has learned.
The president asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
“The signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
“The danger is they’re reading Americans’ mail,” she said.
“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”
A.L.
An excellent analysis of the administration’s reasoning behind the invasion. My personal quibble with your view is that this reasoning is considered to have been a good bet…this notion that a US invasion of a foriegn country, of an Arab state, of a muslim people was likely to have the desired effect of shocking the region’s leaders into behaving in a manner more suitable to US interests. I would have, and did, argue that the opposite effect was more likely. That the limits of our power & reach would be exposed, that it would encourage more and not less radicalism within the muslim world and thus enlarge the pool of potential terrorists, and that it would strain our relationships with the existing elites of the region who would have to justify to their angry mobs why they were supporting such an obvious “satan” as the US.
I know. I know. I know. Hindsight is always 20-20. You’ll just have to take my word (think of me as AP) that I thought this was so obvious BEFORE it actually happened. But really, it just comes down to elemental human psychology: people don’t care much for being invade by foreignors. And unless you are willing to be extremely brutal, which the west no longer is, occupations, invastions, etc. are bound to fail.
But you know, mark, they care even less for dying. I’ll bet if you went to the population of Zimbabwe and asked if they’d mind being invaded and recolonized, they’d ask “how soon?”
And, given a choice between invasion and nuclear war, I’ll take invasion every time (well, every time since WW II, that is).
So the example doesn’t generalize perfectly.
A.L.
Is it possible that you are jumping to conclusions, expecting results too fast? A democratic Iraq will seep into the ground water, so to speak. Meme spreading and cultural change has to be given some time, especially for this part of the world where patriarchy extends into the mists of time. What happened to the comparison to Japan and Germany? Hauling up atavistic societies into the modern world is what the Bush Doctirne is all about and therefore it will be a multigenerational task, especially if we do it with care.
Think stress fractures and ground fault slippage. Deposing Saddam and democratizing Iraq might simply have moved us farther up the curve, closer to the tipping point. The cascade might be imperceptable at the moment, and constantly increasing pressure might be all that we need to get past the cusp.
Perhaps after all, A.L. is spot on: that the mental/cultural preparation for undertaking this task has not yet been addressed. The proof is that we are unprepared to be patient… even so is the famed Mr. Danzinger. How can we move the mentality of the patriarchal cultures when we can’t persuade those among us (the leftward Democrats, but everywhere else on the political spectrum) that resisting modernity is resisting life, that doing so is suicidal?
A.L.,
I think that in the both instances, Iraq & Zimbabwe, it would depend upon who you ask. I am sure, e.g., if you were to ask the mothers of those Iraqi’s who were found dead yesterday, or on all the yesterdays of the last 1,100 days, a large percentage of them would prefer to have not been invaded.
But this is all outside the framework of your original piece and my response to it. We were–or so I thought–talking about the likely results of a US invasion of Iraq in terms of what the US hoped it woud achieve. If you want to shift the discussion to whether or not individual Iraqis are now or will be in the future better off, we can do that, too.
If, by bringing up Zimbabwe, you are making the case that you believe that the US can or ought to use its military might around the world to improve the living conditions of those billions who live in oppressed regimes, poverty, illness, desperation, etc., I would argue that, while a nice idea in theory, in practice it seems a road fraught with dangers and unintended consquences. It also seems a little bit arrogant to me, but more of that, probably, another time.
Looking back, I was most worried about Iraq because all of the conversation was on WHY we should go and not HOW we should go. For what it’s worth, as a lib I don’t want to fail in Iraq, I just critized the administration because I was seriously worried about problems blooming on the ground. I think this administration tried so hard to keep a ‘good face’ on politics that they failed to make the neccessary military actions. Instead, the ‘good face’ is preety much eroded and we seem to be in trouble.
I agree that we can’t give up quite yet. The question does become how much more do we invest to possibly make things go right? There are some places I think we can make things get better, but are they worth the cost of doing them half-assed as they are now?
Maybe the U.S. should dispatch some Ethiopian soldiers to Iraq or maybe send some of our Generals for training in Ethiopia.
5 — You’ve hit the point where the administration can’t do anything right — not because nothing it does is right, but because, no matter what it does, it will be decried as wrong. If the evil warmongering Bush didn’t try to put a good face on what was going on, he would be decried for being even more evil and warmongering and incompetent than everybody already thought he was. There is no way he was ever going to get an even break from his critics in the aggregate, because they don’t all criticize him for the same reasons, they just all criticize him.
I vote we try to build a national attention span that lasts longer than an edited “reality” TV show, and a national understanding that important things are hard to do, no matter how simply they can be explained.
The problem is that we can’t make things in Iraq work — not because of failures in the policy, but because the Iraqis have to do it themselves. It is damned hard to come out of decades of totalitarianism-arrested ethnic hatred into a pluralistic democratic society. It’s not going to happen overnight, but there are signs that it’s happening. More folks are buying into that notion than not, but the folks who hate that notion are trying to apply the lessons learned in places like Saigon, Beirut and Somalia to disrupt that process. They look at the widely vocalized criticism of the war as a sign that they’re winning, and all they need to do is keep doing what they’re doing a little longer, and we’ll leave.
The folks who believe in that pluralistic democratic society in Iraq, and those who oppose it, both need to see that, despite our differences over how we intend to do that, and our differences over the personal character of the president, we as a people are united behind the notion. Unfortunately, there’s been so much emphasis of the differences that there’s little reason anybody in Iraq should believe that we’re committed to supporting democratic change.
#7
“The folks who believe in that pluralistic democratic society in Iraq, and those who oppose it, both need to see that, despite our differences over how we intend to do that, and our differences over the personal character of the president, we as a people are united behind the notion.”
That’s rich, Blain, really rich. Those of us who opposed the war from the get-go knowing it would almost certainly turn into this mess not only because of the lying clowns that are running the effort but because even in a perfect world the idea was IDIOTIC are now supposed to “Unite behind the notion of a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq”?
In my view, that’s as senseless as uniting around prayer to Jesus Christ as a means out of this mess. As well as being as meaningless in its appeal to irrationality and delusion.
The People of the US are united around a goal….we must leave Iraq and we must do so with all due haste. I cannot abide by the senseless sacrifice of US lives and middle class money for the sake of appearance (“They look at the widely vocalized criticism of the war as a sign that they’re winning, and all they need to do is keep doing what they’re doing a little longer, and we’ll leave.”) or presidential hubris.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that the US would shock and awe the Saudis and the Iranians into scaling back their proven goals. The best the US could and did hope for, and it is still a viable hope, is that the people of the Middle East would act to rein in their leaders/governments. The alternative was outright war with several nations. I, for one, would rather take a chance on Plan A (that war in Iraq could provide a democratic model for the Middle East) rather than jump to Plan B (attack them all).
AL-
What you have to say is wrong with the Iraq war is on target, but you miss the real blame for the state we find ourselves in. That was succinctly noted by Blain, the failure belongs at the hands of the gutless portion of the US who have an attention span no longer than a “reality” TV show. The DNC NEVER gave the whole scenario of remaking another country a chance. We were named wrong from the git-go. Bush would have been called wrong by the useful idiots in the DNC and the deranged lunatic fringe that includes the Kos Kidz no matter what he did. If he were to fight the total war that is really needed to win, then he is a Nazi-Hitler-dictator, etc. So, he tried to fight a measured conflict and has now been called wrong for that. What the heck is wrong with you folks on the Left?
Well, I feel that is a self evident answer, you are leftists and have swallowed the Kool-Aid whole. The progressive movement is morally bankrupt and with any luck will expire of it’s own failures in the first half if this century. And, that comes from a former leftist. I was raised by a card carrying commie (Dad) who partnered with a former commie and progressive Democrat (Mom). (When I say this now, it makes me feel like I am saying I was raised by wolves and in a sense I was.) Only after their deaths and 9-11, could I finally come full around to the proper conservative side.
The whole progressive movement has no moral foundation. Oh, they say they are moral, but if you examine their logic and motivations, you will find they have nothing to offer that is logical and complete as a value system. It is all the politics of feel-good. If it plays good in LA, then it must be right.
Back to Iraq. I greatly fear that the people in the US no longer have the fortitude to fight the kind of conflict that is needed to win this long war we find ourselves in the middle of. We did not choose this conflict of cultures, it was chosen by our enemy who has declared we have but two choices, submission or annihilation. I agree, we have two choices. I prefer the annihilation is directed the other way. Col. Peters puts it correctly, we must fight this conflict in such a way as to have our enemy know and admit their own defeat. Nothing else is sufficient. No half measures are allowed. But, the Greatest Generation seems to have given birth to the Softest Generation and that scares the hell out of me.
We must take this fight to the enemy and require submission, their submission to our superiority in war and culture. Only then will they have some chance of coming out the other side of this long war with a proper cultural view of the world and a culture fit for co-habitaion with the rest if the world, but if we do not fight this war in this total manner then we had best get ready to pray five times a day to the muzzeins call. And, Yes, it really is that simple.
We should have hung Saddam a long time ago. But, we are the good guys and let the new Iraqi system try it’s own.
Okay, rant off.
The Hobo
Armed Liberal: “If guaranteeing a “permanent GOP majority” was more important than setting the stage for winning in Iraq — and in retrospect, that certainly appears to have been the case — there is no one to blame but the White House.”
I disagree, and I think there is a far more guilty party, that is the Republican federal legislative majority and its leadership. Unlike George W. Bush, who they did not adequately support on domestic or foreign issues, federal Republican legislators really did seem to think it was all about them, and they could (so they thought) look forward to the personal benefits of incumbency indefinitely. Other than Rick Santorum, none of the republicans who were tossed out in the recent elections will be much missed even by conservatives, much less moderates or liberals. They wasted their chance to make history.
“The Democrats don’t get off scot-free. But this was Bush’s war to win or lose.”
I disagree. It was George W. Bush’s option to find out what Iraqis really wanted. But what they wanted was up to them, not him.
President George W. Bush has a democracy agenda. That means power to the people. That means if the people are your enemies, you are empowering your enemies and the project is broken. As it turned out, for cultural reasons (beginning with Islam), that was the case, and the loss of the war was predetermined.
But the only way to find this out was to give the people power, and see what they would do with it.
This was done.
We should go now.
–
Armed Liberal: “Thanks, Mr. President. Could you do something about that, please?”
No. He really can’t.
8 — Well, then I guess you’re just too brilliant and prescient to waste time with ignorant fools like me. You clearly should not join in supporting a pluralistic and democratic Iraq, since you prefer the totalitarian Iraq that would still exist if those in power had followed your superiour understanding and foresight — no sense in being dishonest. I’d suggest you not bother reading anything else I have to say — anything I might happen to be right on is something you already knew before I did. In fact, I’d stop reading this comment at this period right here ->.
10 — You had me through the first paragraph, and then something happened. I appreciate the support for my first post around here, though, so thanks.
11 — Good emphasis of the point that Iraqis always have and always will bear the main burden of determining their fate. Our job would be “simpler” if we simply determined what their government should be like, and then sent in enough troops to force that outcome to take place. And it would fail miserably, and justifiably. Supporting the Iraqis as they learn how to get along with each other is hard, just like watching a messed-up family learn how to function, only this is on a larger scale. There will be (and have been) false starts and leaps forward and backsliding as they learn by trial and error. I see no reason to think that they are incapable of functioning democratically, but I also see no reason to think that they’re going develop wide-spread trust across their deep divisions quickly nor easily. Again, important things aren’t easy, to paraphrase JFK.
#12
Thanks for the predictable reply.
Whether I “join in supporting” a “pluralistic and democratic Iraq” or not is irrelevant to the outcome of the mess there which I take it you may have helped create through your support of Bush. Correct me if I’m wrong, but unless you believe that the Power of Positive Thinking or Faith or Prayer is going to help, then your comments can only be interpreted as yet another effort by the Right wing warmongers to maneuver the opposition into aligning with your misguided plans and warped, violent views of the world.
No thanks.
Yes, I support PEACE and democracy in Iraq. I also support free choice and human rights and global peace and goodwill toward men. So when leaders act against this, like Bush in Iraq, I get angry; doubly so when they pretend that this is or was their goal to begin with. The Iraqis didn’t choose this trajectory…Bush and you chose it for them. They are not happy. Many would choose to return to the relative peace and stability of Iraq under Saddam, even given the brutal manner in which he excercised control over the Iraqi people. That is rather telling, wouldn’t you agree, of the current and projected state of affairs? There is very little evidence that things will end up better off for the majority of Iraqis than before the war, let alone the region, and even less evidence that the US is still (or ever was) in a position to effect this using military force as the primary tool of diplomacy.
Leave it to Bush to make an already bad situation worse.
“Those of us who opposed the war from the get-go knowing it would almost certainly turn into this mess not only because of the lying clowns that are running the effort but because even in a perfect world the idea was IDIOTIC are now supposed to “Unite behind the notion of a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq”?”
Am I the only person who thinks the obvious answwer is “yes”?
Or is somehow having a bunch of lying clowns mean that we want the middle east in chaos?
I mean, if we abandoned our principals because of lying clowns in office, we really wouldn’t have very many left, would we?
I guess fail to understand how knowing that Iraq would turn into a mess somehow relieves a person of their obligation to strive towards universal human rights goals. Or our national strategic interests, a la the ISG, which predicted regional war if Iraq fails.
Hasn’t anybody ever worked for a boss that made stupid decisions? Are there any grown-ups around any more? Seems like some people want everything their way, or they disown the entire system. I guess that’s intellectually easier than actually trying to work through these issues. Hope you sleep well at night, bub.
Blaine:
There was a period after the first elctions alot of libs + media were reevaluating the Bush plan. Time ran a cover “Was Bush Right?”, Jon Stewart admitted that it seemed like Bush might have things right. Peace appeared to be peeking in into the middle east. If things had continued to go down that path, I think the democratic party would have shattered into peices, and Bush would be enjoying very little competition, as was the case ~3 years ago.
But things didn’t work out that way, and Bush deserves much of the blame for the current state, just as he wold have deserved the credit for success.
Yes, many of actions were declared “wrong” by the left party (which is the standard reaction by most opposition parties), but the Republican party controlled all three major segments of the goverment, and have the duty to make tough decisions that many people will not want to hear. Abraham Lincoln was riduculed from all sides: The North thought he was too soft on the South, the South thought he was too Northern. But he made a gut check and made decisions that were unpopular in trying to mend the North & South, and then trying to win the Civil war. That’s what made him a great president.
Bush’s legacy is dependent on the state of Iraq. Nothing I say, or critiques I make, will make any difference in that outcome.
Daniel;
Let me be clear about this, because your criticism that my opposition to Bush’s war plans past and present amounts to abandoning a humanitarian concern for Iraqis is simply unfounded.
What it seems is that you are attempting to equate the President’s war plan, such as it is, with “support for a pluralistic Democratic Iraq”. Tell me, what exactly about the course of the war has led you to believe that establishing this in Iraq is or ever was a priority for Bush? Do you think a troop escalation or more money will help the Iraqis? Even if you do, can you tell me where you think this excess capacity will come from?
The best thing we can do for Iraq and the US is to get out and let the situation continue along its inevitable path…whether for better or worse. We are and will continue to be powerless against the forces that have arisen in the vacuum that is left after Saddam, and I see absolutely no reason why Americans should be left in the crossfire to die like they are now. It’s too late to save this situation with military force, and I can think of about a hundred things to spend the money on that will improve the lives and security of Americans to a much greater degree than this.
That is the approach I see as the most humanitarian for the current situation. The troops on the ground, the American Public, and military leaders also largely agree with this, not to mention a vast majority of our Western allies.
So what exactly is it that you are arguing? An increase in sloganeering among the general public???
Ah yes, our obligation towards “universal human rights goals”. Excuse number 3,523 for the current mess in Iraq is brought to you by Litton Int’l, avionics that care.
Andy
“What it seems is that you are attempting to equate the President’s war plan, such as it is, with “support for a pluralistic Democratic Iraq”.”
No I am not. I am asking if you share the same goal of a democratic middle east. You have not answered that question, except to posture on the current administration and current situation.
“The best thing we can do for Iraq and the US is to get out and let the situation continue along its inevitable path…whether for better or worse.”
Logic demands that you, then, describe why the same strategy would not be good for Kosovo? For Sudan? And do so in terms that are non-partisan. What is it about Iraq that deserves to be left alone and in other parts of the world deserve attention?
I’m not arguing anything. In fact, I might be for withdrawing troops if that is the most strategically practical thing to do. I’m a pragmatist, not a moralist.
What ticks me off is either you are for “a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq” or not. LEAVE ASIDE your political BS — is this a goal of yours or not? Because it makes a difference. Even if you want to pull out immediately, the goal makes a difference. People are dying right now for that goal, in whatever mishandled and badly formed war you think it is. What you sound like you are saying is that the old policy of “he’s a dictator, but he’s OUR dicatator”.
It’s one thing to say people died for a noble goal that was inexpertly persued. It’s another to bang the drum of defeat and cowardice and chatter around like a chicken ready to become dinner, or a frightened child homesick for mommy. We’re fairly good at exercising military force in this country, and we have ready manpower and resources. If you want to quit at this level of effort, that’s fine. Saying the entire situation is “unwinnable”, however, is completely dishonest. In my opinion, a better phrase would be “I didn’t want to commit one troop and I don’t support committing any additional ones” which sounds a lot like “I don’t care if it is winnable or not, I’m not going to support it, and when we pull out I’m going to say it was unwinnable”
I’m going to leave aside what the word “win” means, or what the intermediate goals are (1-5 year timeframe). The plan I’ve read shows clearing and holding Baghdad. That’s a concrete goal. Does it support your larger goals or not? Does securing Baghdad, even in a war of idiocy, make a free and democratic middle east any closer? I think the answer is yes, so I support it.
Not that I think democracy is a panacea. In fact, when these guys vote they’re probably going to vote in some ugly stuff. That’s fine. Next time we have to use force I’ll feel better that we’re acting against the people themselves instead of the dictators. I’ll also know that we are one step forward in untangling a mess that has been festering for centuries.
But we could just run away and focus on welfare, or ghetto moms, or literacy rates in high school, or any one of a dozen other inward-looking, self-absorbed, make-you-feel-good-to-hear-them programs. Maybe port security? Playing defense makes zero sense, but it’s a great way to pay off political debts, right?
Well, let’s go through this column, one more time, set apart the lies from the truths.
_I am a liberal Democrat_
In your head – not out here in reality. When 99% of liberal democrats disagree, it’s time to get yourself a new label.
_Those aims, I believed (and still believe) included shocking the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran into throttling back their support for Islamist and Salafist terror, breaking the pattern of state sponsorship that led al-Qaida to become a capable force in the 1990s, and creating a network of Middle Eastern allies against the movement represented by — but not controlled by — al-Qaida._
This is fantasist thinking. As Atrios would say “And a Pony!!” You might as well post your wishes to Santa Claus. It’s been said again and again – but thinking that overthrowing Iraq would lead to any of the above goals, is sheer infantilistic fantasy.
_Where I was flatly wrong was in ignoring the weakness within the U.S. — weakness centered in the White House. The constraints on how we fought and what we were willing to spend were put on by the Bush administration. They chose to emphasize a cheap, light, less-lethal war that would require little political capital._
Well, then you were blind. The administration kept emphasizing how easy and cheap this was going to be. Do you remember the “greeted with flowers” talk? the “no more than 10 billion” talk? If you take your own analysis seriously, then the administration was clear from the beginning, from before the war, in what they were willing to risk. The war, as such, was “sold” falsely. Call it lying (as I do) or call it “selective truth-telling” as those more favorable to the administration do – but really, in this case “the end is in the beginning” is a true statement for the outcome here. And the carefree nature of the beginning was obvious from the get-go.
You can say _that the political support for the Bush administration and for the war effort would collapse, and we’d be paralyzed in the face of future challenges as the political ability to actually do anything evaporates_, but that is what you get when you base a war on half-truths, evasions, lies, and misleading statements.
Interesting that hypocrisy makes no decisions of his own, he simply calls “liar!” and quits.
Perhaps there is some sort of standards for going into a war. Something like a ISO 9000 quality award. After all, unless the political rhetoric meets your standards, no need participating. Better to stand outside and throw rocks.
And BTW, “The administration kept emphasizing how easy and cheap this was going to be” is total BS. Yes, you can find quotes of administration officials and the flowers, but by and large they kept telling us it was going to be long and hard. You’ve been beaten senseless on this many times, HR. A hard head is a terrible thing to have.
And even if somebody told you a war was going to be easy, what are you, an idiot? Didn’t they ever tell you that wars suck? Do you really think that by disparaging the politicians, you can eliminate your civic duty? What world are you from?
Sorry guys, I’ve just had enough of the partisan baloney. I understand having a bad president of an opposing party get us into a ill-conceived war. I do NOT understand people’s reaction to being in that supposed situation. Quite frankly I am ashamed of them.
Daniel;
“What ticks me off is either you are for “a pluralistic democratic society in Iraq” or not. LEAVE ASIDE your political BS.”
I am FOR it.
“– is this a goal of yours or not?”
To reiterate, since I do not think this is a realistic goal, ESPECIALLY because of who is in charge, then my answer to this is NO. It makes no sense to me to set goals that are artificially too high, too costly for their return, or unachievable.
Surely a pragmatist can understand this reasoning.
One hypothesis that helps to explain why a leader would intentionally set vague and unreachable goals springs to mind, however. Let me share it with you.
You mention “paying off political debts”. Well, the war in Iraq has to be the biggest boondoggle ever perpetrated on the US taxpayer….a substantial and shockingly large amount of money is as has been quickly disappearing into the pockets of profiteers…um, I mean “contractors” to an extent unmatched in modern history.
In addition, a “war” gives Bush the power to act like the dictator he wishes he really was. It serves to insulate him well against criticism and partisan manipulation. Without this war, he would be nothing. What other possible reason can you think of to explain his total and utter botching of the job? Either it was an accident and he’s among the biggest fools in history, or its intentional and he’s applying an Orwellian strategy to maintain power and control. Take your pick.
#20 Daniel,
Really isn’t worth going into this, but I’ll do it once –
_Interesting that hypocrisy makes no decisions of his own, he simply calls “liar!” and quits_
Doesn’t address what I’ve said at all, so that can be ignored.
_Perhaps there is some sort of standards for going into a war. Something like a ISO 9000 quality award. After all, unless the political rhetoric meets your standards, no need participating. Better to stand outside and throw rocks._
I nominate this for the best strawman – so far – in WOC 2007!
_A hard head is a terrible thing to have._
Preach it brother! I suggest preaching that speech to a mirror.
_And even if somebody told you a war was going to be easy, what are you, an idiot?_
Oh definitely – mainly for posting on sites like this! 🙂
But to the point – my civic duty, such as it was, was to point out again and again, that the U.S. shouldn’t be invading Iraq based on a pack of lies and half-truths, especially without the backing of the international community, and without an overriding casus belli.
_Sorry guys, I’ve just had enough of the partisan baloney. I understand having a bad president of an opposing party get us into a ill-conceived war. I do NOT understand people’s reaction to being in that supposed situation. _
this wasn’t the thread to discuss “solutions”, and I would say, that the first step to undertaking solutions would be to affix the blame where it lies, and to STOP misdiagnosis -if you don’t know where you’ve been, how can you know where you are going? – which the Danziger article is full of.
Daniel;
Here’s more support for my hypothesis. Thought you might be interested in reading it.
By James Gordon Meek
New York Daily News
Washington – President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the New York Daily News has learned.
The president asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
“The signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
“The danger is they’re reading Americans’ mail,” she said.
“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”