I’m really unhappy about the Administration’s new approach to the U.N. in search of troops, financial support, and legitimacy for the Iraq occupation.
I’m unhappy for four reasons.
First, and foremost, I’m unhappy because I think that the U.N. as presently constituted is damn unlikely to be a positive force in Iraq. The forces within Germany and France that traded oil for weapons with Saddam will see this as a way to avoid the scrutiny they deserve, and the dysfunctional U.N. will itself see this as a shot in the arm, keeping it from going through the changes it needs to become a truly effective and legitimate international organization, as opposed to what it is…a corrupt debating club, that is used to provide diplomatic cover for oligarchs, kleptocrats, and the corporate and political bureaucrats who serve them.Second, I’m unhappy because the one thing I know we need to succeed in this war is an iron butt…the patience and solidity to just stick it out long after it stops being comfortable. And this feels to me like a demonstration that the anticipation of discomfort is backing us way up on the positions we’ve taken up to now.
Third, I’m unhappy because we’ve wasted what should have been a political and diplomatic opportunity to create a new set of ad hoc international structures more to our liking and, more important, more likely to be effective in the current conflict; whether the alliances would have been with Russia or Brazil, India or Norway. Instead of sticking it out and doing the diplomatic horsetrading that we should have done…and I’m hard pressed to believe that there weren’t horses to trade…we looked our opponents in the eyes, raised big, and then folded at the next opportunity.
Finally, I’m unhappy because this will make any followup to Iraq…whether it involves pressure on Iran or Syria…vastly more difficult, as we’ll be dependent on the goodwill…if such a thing exists…of the U.N.
I think there is a chance to reform the U.N. and the existing international organizations. That slim chance will only exist if there is a real threat to the organizations, and they see their only options as reform or irrelevance – because irrelevance will be followed by defunding, and the cushy, tax-free jobs will vanish.
I don’t see how this gets spun as anything but what it is, which is Rage, Rage, Against the Dying of the Light” and “Clarification“. But thanks to Chirac et. al., within 48 hours “Happy Days Are Here Again“.
* Michael Ubaldi comments: “Nerves Fail, A Little Bit.”
* Cold Fury comments: “Guzzling the U.N. Kool-Aid”
* Caerdroia comments: “Why the U.N.? Why Now?”
* Flame Turns Blue comments: “U.S. Seeks U.N. Resolution“
Seconded on all counts.
Thirded on same.
Jeez A.L.,
I’m in complete agreement with you on this one. 🙂
What is the world coming to?
Nahhh…
This is Bush going through the motions and observing the forms with the U.N. while he awaits events.
He did the same thing before Iraq was conquered and both he and his people have this scripted out.
The usual suspects are going to do the usual things and again rub in the face of the multilateralist tranzies here in America the utter irrelevance of “international civil society” to America’s war aims.
After all, what do you think he and his people were up to in Crawford? A vacation?
I’m inclined to agree with Trent. I think this is more or less a sop to the inter comm. The UN will not accept overall US command, we can then say: “We invited them on board and they refused.”
After that, there will be very little the tranzis and the UN drones can say about Iraqi oversight.
Forgot one thing. Even if the UN would except US overall command, that could be a turned into a dipo triumph for the US, in that the UN would be de facto acknowledging US supremacy to their organization. Which is, by the way, the reason I believe they will not go for this deal.
Powell said today that the UN would help in reconstruction and finding funds for reconstruction. OK, whatever, the UN Professional Compassion Brigade can party it up in Baghdad, a la Kabul.
But what really unnerves me is that Powell also mentioned UN assistance in setting up some sort of “electoral system” as he called it. The UN must absolutely NOT be involved in setting up any sort of government in Iraq.
One of the worst failures of the US in post-conquest Iraq is the absolute lack of propaganda. Iran has set up, what? 5 TV stations? a dozen? and who knows how many radio stations. How many does the US have? How many radio stations does the US have on the air? How about newspapers?
Are we giving the Iraqis any guidance as to how their government should be set up? Has John Locke been translated into arabic? I don’t know the answer for sure, but I doubt it.
And, in that vacuum, the UN technocrats will come in.
I’d like to point out that Germany *didn’t* trade weapons for oil. Read the post you are linking to, please.
A couple of additional possibilities — mix and match as you choose.
a) Bush’s /political/ M.O. is to give his opponents a little bit of what they claim to want. Just enough to neutralise the issue. Strategic offence. Tactical defence.
b) Under US command–if the UN would accept such–additional troops can be tasked to less urgent stuff now occupying some of our better units. We may be planning to rest at re-fit a lot of our special ops people for the next phase of things this coming winter.
c) UN involvement gives political cover to a couple of countries–namely Japan and India–who have expressed some willingness to be involved in Iraq, but who also have aspirations to become permanent members of the Security Council.
d) The military situation in Iraq may be drastically different by the time the UN people are actually ready to get involved. In particular, in another month or so we’ll have a lot more thermal contrast to work with in remote areas. All the bad guys flooding in this summer may find the exits blocked. Pisser of an ambush.
e) That trans-nationalist hell-hole they call the State Department–especially the Harvard coterie and the numerous Clintonites upgraded to ‘career’–may have worn down the Bushies at the top.
Pete Stanley,
The most important facts about the American occupation are not being reported because the media is clueless, has the attention span of field mice, and are proud of it.
I sent Joe Katsman a USA TODAY article reporting on the Shia Pilgram traffic through the Iran/Iraq border. It went on and on about Shia pilgrims, but never bothered to mention whether they were arabic speakers or farsi speakers and at what proportions.
The latter, with the recent bombings, indicates the Iranian Mullahs are playing the same holy site fight games they played with the Saudis in Mecca.
If the arabic speakers are coming across as families it means one thing, if they are coming over in groups of bearded fighting age males, we are looking at Jihadis.
There is a learning curve in war. The Bush Administration is going through that now. So are our jihadi enemies. And so are our potential Shia-Arab allies.
The key to a successful American occupation of Iraq is building alliances with the Arab Shia of Iraq for a secular/democratic government. The bombing of this Shia-Arab cleric was an indication that America was succeeding and the Alliance of al-Qaeda and the Iranian mullah’s had to act to slow/stop this process.
As AL said,
“Instead of sticking it out and doing the diplomatic horsetrading that we should have done…and I’m hard pressed to believe that there weren’t horses to trade…we looked our opponents in the eyes, raised big, and then folded at the next opportunity.”
Yeah, that’s about it.
And what Pete says about the radio and TV is something I’ve said before. I really assumed we would have this massive public information publishing and broadcasting apparatus ready to go, right behind the soldiers and Marines.
But we ceded that ground first to Iranian broadcasting, then al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya when Iraqis got satellite dishes. (I wonder how many Iraqis do have satellite dishes? Must ask son.)
Indicative of incompetence.
Ralf –
Sorry, I was overterse. But German companies certainly did sell weapons and components to Saddam in return for cash he got from the funds skimmed for food-for-oil and the associated smuggling operations.
A.L.
Trent –
I’m genuinely curious; you’re pretty consistently taking a position that ‘this is a problem of perception,’ so what would the hard indicators be that we could use to measure whether there was a real problem or not? I’ll certainly agree with you that the media are clueless about this – partly because of explicit institutional bias against America, and partly because they are looking for ‘dramatic stories’ and problems are such stories.
So what’s the metric that we might use?
A.L.
I don’t think that the media have attention of field mice. I think that it’s a combination of laziness and hostility to the Bush administration.
StratFor thinks that the US is working out secret agreements with the Iranian gov’t. They contend that Iran built a network of supporters in S. Iraq in the decade after Saddam’s defeat in Kuwait. The US has realized that this is the case, the Shia are largely organized, and the Bush admin. is now bending to reality in Iraq.
I’m not sure I agree with StratFor’s analysis, but it’s plausible. Especially in light of the whole UN thing. UN approves, and so India sends troops. India and Iran are cooperating more closely now. Sorta.
Like I said, I’m not sure they’re correct. The reports coming out of the Israeli media about the whereabouts of Imad Mugniyah (sp.) are disturbing, but then if there is a US-Iran deal in the works, the Israelis would be working to undermine it, wouldn’t they?
I haven’t really had time to digest the StratFor report – it flies in the face of most stuff I’ve read over the past couple of months, and my thoughts about where the WoT should go in the future.
About the pilgimages – there’s a weblog out there by a woman (an American?) who has married/will marry an Iranian man. She described some of the Pilgrimage activity. I wish I could remember the name of the weblog – Jarvis linked to it a week ago or so.
Karbala:
*here*
More Karbala:
*here*
Seems to me this UN initiative is driven almost entirely by the desire of the uniforms at DOD to maintain certain force levels in Iraq yet not disrupt their training/rest/deployment rotations or hurt retention. Valid concerns, but one could question whether other elements of our global full-plate should “give” first — say, our commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo, as the first candidates.
There’s also a desire to tap into more cash — or at least appear to be trying, since prospects for help from others seem dim (Afghanistan, far poorer, less controversial operation, and so far just about 30% of UN special appeal funded, with US still the big donor).
Very hard to believe the US will surrender the freedom of action it might need (say, to take on Syria or Iran), and has purchased with such blood and treasure. But there are a few puzzling aspects to this and related statements by US officials.
Is it just me, or are there reasons to think that Arab and Turkish forces are not going to be wildly popular in the Shi’a south (only place we’d put ’em, if we get ’em)? Sunni Arab troops (there aren’t any other kind) from states seen as (at best) collaborators with the Saddam tyranny, or former Turkish imperial masters — why is Gen. Sanchez so anxious to have them?
A related point — why the expressed desire to make the occupation look less “American”? Doesn’t the need to convince Iraqis that this is the real deal, that the acknowledged dominant power is engaged and serious, trump (by far) the storied Iraqi and Arab resentment of foreign occupation? At least until the Ba’ath and the terrorists are squelched?
After learning through experience that a major challenge was to convince Iraqis and the Shi’a in particular that we were there to finish the job and wouldn’t leave until the Ba’ath was extirpated and a new system was on its feet — what’s the impact on local perceptions when we leave, and Pakistani troops suddenly show up? It would gag a NYT or NPR reporter and most of the foreign service to hear it, but don’t US forces have a credibility with Iraqis as liberators, humanitarians, and friends of democracy that few if any other militaries would bring to the task?
The administration has heretofore seemed to understand that this is a contest of wills — and A.L’s absolutely right that this scrambling for resources we want, but don’t really need, could present precisely the wrong appearance to all local contestants, friendly or hostile. At least it seems like a hazard worth considering.
I think the whole going to the UN process is just a bait and switch by Bush (again). The Bush administration’s intention is to get the minimum UN involvement necessary in order to allow India and Japan to justify deplyments in the stabilization force. The idea that Bush is somehow desperate and “needs” UN cash and forces is quite ludricrous, but perhaps allows those normally opposed to US actions (France, Russia and Germany) to save face in giving some sort of UN approval.
I think they’ll do this whole UN thing for about 4-5 months, which serves as a delay, confuses Al Qaeda as to what US intentions and capabilities actually are, and allows the Americans to quietly get an Iraqi force in the field – which is what’s really required.
I’m just very, very surprised that so many pundits still buy the Bush-as-Idiot line, even after all this time. Of course, Bush does nothing to dissuade this. Anyone who has read “I Claudius” can see what is really going on, however.
I know a quick way for the Bush administration to get money to Iraq: give the UN less. We all know that immense bureaucracy can stand some trimming.
A.L.,
We want India to contribute ground forces for garrison duty in Iraq for some reason, or at least pretend we do (take your pick), India says “not without UN approval” and we ask the UN for approval.
So what’s the problem? The chance of the UN doing anything at all on this is about the same as you becoming a Republican, and over the same time frame.
When we get turned down this time, it’s our excuse for leaving the UN.
(If I’m right I get to be a blogosphere prophet. If I’m wrong this post will be forgotten).
Pete S.,
Stratfor is not a reliable source. They have consistently been captives of their sources, such as Pakistan’s ISI. They show rotten judgment. They’re in the same league as Debka.
(If I’m right I get to be a blogosphere prophet. If I’m wrong this post will be forgotten)./i>
LOL…that oughta be someone’s blog tagline…
A.L.
I changed my mind about one point.
It wasn’t the tax cuts that destroyed the budget. It was run away spending.
As a way to stimulate the economy tax cuts are a very good idea. In fact lower taxes make US business more competitive in world markets. This is good.
What is missing is good old Clintonian spending restraint. The only place I would have loosened the spending strings would be in the military budget.
If the Bush Admin needs money they could end drug prohibition.
That would lower Federal and state useless expenditures. Cut srime and murder in half and keep billions in the US that now gets sent abroad.
It appears that we now have two choices in political parties: militarily weak economicaly strong or militarily stron economically weak.
SPD,
I do think your analysis of Bush re: the UN is correct.
However given his spending policy I’m not so sure about his intelligence.
A strong economy and a relatively balanced budget are all components of a sound military/foreign policy.
I think that after the 2004 election, Bush’s spending habits will change dramatically. In fact, I think they’ll be going after Social Security, Medicare, etc. following the election.
But yeah, if they’ve not discussed killing the drug war, then they’re not doing their job. After all the bs politicians have spilled regarding drugs, undoing this work will be difficult, to say the least.
>I’m genuinely curious; you’re pretty
>consistently taking a position that ‘this is a
>problem of perception,’ so what would the hard
>indicators be that we could use to measure
>whether there was a real problem or not?
A.L.,
The first and most important thing to remember is that we are at war. Bad things happen and there is a fog of events that cover the real news in noise.
The important thing is that everyone involved is learning. Those that learn faster and have the resources to apply those lessons are going to win. That is both a description of the American war effort as a whole and the Bush Administration in particular.
There are three things to watch for:
1) Any news of the Arab Shia that reflect on their social bonds and factions. They are the center of gravity of the ‘occupation campaign.’
An example is Instapundit’s story link telling how the Arab Shia captured and turned over to local police two suspected Al-Qaeda.
What does that tell you about their social cohesion and their trust of the local authorities the Coalition Forces set up? It tells me these are people we can make deals with over the long haul. That cohesion is why the Southern Shia lead Mullah was car bombed.
2) Any stories about cross border traffic into Iraq.
Outside the Ba’athis Sunni triangle, the attacks on Coalition forces look to be exclusively by foreign fighters. The ones with Syrian pass ports are either Palestinians or Lebanese Shia. The Saudis are Al-Qaeda. The ones fron Iran seem to be a mix of Afghan Jihadis passing through and Persians working and causing trouble at the direction of the Mullahs.
A sudden change in that mix will tell you a great deal.
3) Signs of real popular opposition by the Southern Shia to Coalition forces rule. To date, there hasn’t been any real popular opposition.
The southern Shia seem to have a small levening of local young Shia Mullah power challengers allied with Iran who have no local popular support, but include a number of foreigners on their support staff. The general name describing these power challengers is LOSERS.
Trent, those are sensible and interesting indicators, and deserve to be widely monitored. I’m modifying my CNN.com alerts…
A.L.
A.L.,
I completely agree about the iron-butt part. However, in regard to this:
I think you engage in wishful thinking. The UN and many of the NGO’s are quite beyond reform. You were barking up the right tree earlier in your post when you talked about ad hoc alliances for specific tasks.
Kirk –
I’m a huge believer in “no bucks, no Buck Rodgers.” When the U.N. finds its budget being whittled back because the activities for which it solicits funding … and a small management fee … are cut back, I think some changes will happen.
There’s another issue, which goes to the legitmacy of the U.N. that I keep meaning to blog, but the short version is this: give me 500 good military instructors, and I can take over a country and probably get a seat on the U.N. (again, with the “Tiger Lily” lines…)
That, plus get control of the exploitable assets of my country, which I can bank near my chalet on Lake Como.
We’ve ceded seats in the U.N. to a bunch of those countries, and we need to take them away.
A.L.
A.L.
This is an example of one of the articles talking about the real facts on the ground in Iraq:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030902-025719-3281r.htm
“The Iraqi people, in spite of all that is said, love the Americans. They are deeply grateful and are giving the United States the benefit of the doubt.
What has happened as far as the general population is concerned is what I term “the great letdown.” People tend to make the United States Superman. They think the United States is all-powerful, the bastion of freedom, democracy, strength.
They thought that the United States would come in and with superhuman power overnight transform Baghdad into New York and Mosul into San Francisco.
It is traumatic to realize that America is not God and is very, very human. There is this gap between godlike perceptions of Americans and the realization that they have limits and cannot do everything overnight.
That is why it is critical to get basic services up — electricity, water, and transportation.
With all due respect, people in Iraq in general hate radical Islam. They are secular. They do not want to see an Islamic state. They do not want to become like Iran.
At the same time, money and people from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other places are flooding the country using intimidation to accomplish what they cannot do by any other means. And average Iraqi is concerned at what seems to be a U.S. position, that is soft on Islam.”
Beware of excessive expectations. The media and certain politicians are creating panic. However, it is simply unreasonable to claim that Iraq should have a functioning government after five months instead of fifteen, or that a native police force should suddenly spring from the ground, or that electricity and water should be flowing now and not after a year or three years. Imagine Texas with similarly decrepit infrastructure – how long would it take to repair it everywhere? More than five months, I´d say.
There is simply no rational foundation for these expectations which are then turned into accusations of failure. I´m sure there are many problems that could be handled better, but how would I know? There is no constructive criticism, there is a surprising lack of details in all these opinion pieces. Just as nobody bothers to explain in what way exactly a UN involvement would help.
Regarding security, it must be clear that even in the best case, there will be terrorist attacks and deaths in Iraq for many years to come. Just as there are in Israel, the Philippines, India, Russia, Pakistan plus a dozen countries you rarely hear about. Why should Iraq be different, when even Spain had to deal with ETA for decades, when the IRA almost killed a British prime minister? Iraq is now a front in the wider war which involves mainly the Saudis and Iran (this was never about Iraq alone).
Panicking now means defeat. It´ll reduce US leverage over the region, encourage our enemies and will cost us dearly in the medium term. It will be seen by future administrations as a mandate to try nothing like that ever again. Then we´ll see how international law protects us.
IceCold said:
=====
but one could question whether other elements of our global full-plate should “give” first — say, our commitments in Bosnia and Kosovo, as the first candidates.
=====
I think there’s a pretty good chance that Bosnia and Kosovo are a quasi-European front in the Terror War — given heavy Iranian and al Qaeda involvement there in the past.
If we keep our people there it accomplishes two things — a) helps keep the bad guys’ heads down in that part of the world, and b) makes it easier to come in hard there if we have to (because it threfore isn’t a ‘new’ operation).
We /are/ changing our deployments in other parts of the world — eg Korea (one of my boys is there), but this is all a delicate and challenging business after 8 years drawdowns and neglect.
I’ll 17th. Fantastic, AL.
GW seems prepared to eat some humble pie here with the UN and the rest of the world. In keeping with his previous style he has future goals in focus.
Politically, the high unilateral levels of US troops in Iraq through 2004 is a powerful hot button issue.
It is also past time for the international community to share the face of islamic terrorism head-on. Munich, Marseille, or Medina are not immune. The UN itself now understands. The flypaper seems to have worked.
But more than that, we need to get the troops home, rested, and refit for the next set of axis adventures. And repairing some international fences will assist in that objective (and at the very least help keep Tony alive).
I disagree with A.L. and Porphy on this.
I would agree if I thought Bush was doing what they say he is. But I don’t think so. I think he is making the effort for a reason. People have been going around claiming that the UN will let us be in charge. That they would support a UN Resolution that maintains U.S. leadership in Iraq.
I think Bush knows that won’t happen. But he’s proposing such a Resolution anyhow, and they will make the effort. France and Germany are already complaining that it isn’t enough. They won’t accept a Resolution where America leads a UN effort. They want more. Are France and Germany offering to help in Iraq? No.
This will prove to fair-minded Americans that what unfair-minded people like Klaatu have been saying isn’t the case. I know it won’t affect unfair-minded people: Klaatu is going to insult Bush even while Bush is doing what Klaatu has said he should. But close-minded people do not matter. Bush is proposing exactly what Klaatu said Bush should. France and Germany are not going to let it happen. People who have watched the situation knew that already. But some need to see it demonstrated. It will be played out. The people who blame Bush no matter what will still blame Bush after this, but fair-minded Americans will understand who is obstructing things, and that they aren’t interested in help. Just in control.
Score one for the Bush master plan to discredit international organizations and American transnational progressive supporters of them.
The usual suspects are behaving in the usual way.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20030904/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq&printer=1
———————–
France, Germany Criticize Iraq Resolution
18 minutes ago
By GEIR MOULSON, Associated Press Writer
DRESDEN, Germany – The leaders of Germany and France criticized a U.S. draft resolution seeking international troops and money for Iraq (news – web sites), saying it falls short by not granting responsibility to Iraqis or a large enough role to the United Nations (news – web sites).
The two nations — who led opposition to the Iraq war — lined up their stances ahead of tough negotiations over the U.S. draft resolution put forward Wednesday. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news – web sites) said the United States welcomes “constructive input” — but he insisted the U.S. plan addresses France and Germany’s concerns.
The U.S. proposed seeks troops and money for Iraq’s postwar reconstruction but declines to relinquish political or military control of the country.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac insisted Washington had to go further.
(snip)
France and Germany want control and they aren’t going to change their mind if we say “pretty please”, like some claim.
Of course, the Bush haters know that, but they won’t let it get in the way of their partisan attacks.
Interesting debate.
I agree completely with AL, Joe and Porphyrogenitus: if what is proposed is also what’s going to happen, it’s a very, very bad thing.
But I find myself in Trent’s, Tom’s, and Igor’s camp here; the whole proposal to bring in the UN is a show. I don’t think anybody in the Bush administration expects meaningful results (in terms of money or manpower contributions) from going to the UN this time either.
So what’s the point, then? Personally, I think it is partly domestic politics; the D’s are going to bitch and moan about this decision too, and end up sounding impossibly incoherent. Partly it is a distraction too — get the media to write endless stories about the meaningless UN debates instead of endless stories about purported quagmires in Iraq and elsewhere.
In the meantime, Stuff of Substance is going to happen, and Bush will go on the offensive.
David Kay will release his WMD report, our efforts to train Iraqi police will result in thousands of Iraqis getting deployed, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if, during the UN negotiations, we’ll finally release embarrassing information about certain European countries’ lucrative and friendly relationship with Saddam.
Fredrik,
Bush, like most master politicians, rarely does anything for a single reason. This one move does the following:
1) Smoke out and discredit American and international Trazies.
2) Smoke out the Indians and determine if they are really on the same side in the War on Terrorism.
3) Help Tony Blair by drawing out the Axis of Weasal into openly deep sixing Bush’s proposed U.N. mandate.
4) Distract the Media from quagmire stories.
5) Put Bush in control of both the international and American domestic agenda’s.
Going to the U.N. is the Bush diplomatic version of the anti-terrorist “Flypaper” strategy on the ground in Iraq.
Trent, you do give Bush too much credit.
Even assuming your ‘second intention’ interpretation is correct, it is a very expensive move, since the one thing that will change the minds of the poeple whose minds we need to change – the financiers and facilitators of Al Quieda and it’s cohorts – is the belief that we are absolutely determined to see this thing through, regardless. ragerdless of the financial cost, regardless of the political cost, we’re here to stay and we mean what we’re saying.
When we say at the beginning of the week that we need to make “a generational commitment” and at the end of the week “a little help, please,” I have a hard time squaring those datapoints with the belief that we are serious and absolutely determined.
And if it doesn’t help give me the impression that we’re determined, what do you think the effect is on those who already are convinced that we’re weak?
A.L.
Jeez, I was going to stay out of this one, make some money instead, but my ears were burning ’cause Igor wuz talkin’ about me.
I’m glad Bush is doing this. I hope he’s sincere. It will be a process of negotiation to get a resolution, and unfortunately diplomacy is mostly opaque to the public, so we will probably not know what each nations bottom line was for many years to come.
My natural conservatism (distinguished from right-wing radicalism or “neo” conservatism) leads me to understand that humans are not perfectable. I am not perfect, and I never expect that everyone is going to agree with me.
So it is with nations. In diplomacy, many factors are involved, hard quantitative things like money, troops and square kilometers and mushy qualitative things like values and individual egos, styles and attitudes.
When Rummy talks about “old Europe,” when leaders get on board with this “freedom fries” nonsense, when an assistant secretary of state provokes gasps at a news conference in Europe by belittling France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands as the “chocolate making countries” it is “unhelpful.”
My own diplomatic style would probably tend to moderate and conciliatory public statements, coupled with pretty extreme threats in private.
That’s not the Bushite way except for Colin Powell.
I hate to harp on the past, but if it had been done right a year ago . . .
And just to focus on the UN, in its humanly supreme imperfectability, to paraphrase AL’s words, the UN is partly an “effective and legitimate international organization,” and partly “a corrupt debating club, that is used to provide diplomatic cover for oligarchs, kleptocrats, and the corporate and political bureaucrats who serve them.”
Now that it’s gone, I realize how much I was a fan of Bush I’s New World Order.
Amusingly, no one who says “… if it had been done right a year ago” ever has a substantive way in which the Bush administration could have bridged the gap in interests between the United States and France/Germany.
Instead we get meaningless discussion of style. The problem last year wasn’t style, it was perceived self-interest and conflicting national goals. When we hear a Democratic presidential candidate repeat another variation of the style argument, you must ask yourself whether such a person has such a poor understanding of foreign affairs or is just being dishonest.
When someone shows a concrete way in which France and Germany could be induced to abandon the reasons they wanted to protect Saddam Hussein from the consequences of his actions, then I might take them seriously.
Robin –
I’ll tell you what I would have done; I’d have had Colin Powell in Moscow and New Delhi laying out the quid pro quo, and making it clear that there was going to be a new coalition built, and they could be in it if they chose to – any why that would be good for them and for the world.
If Russia and India had said they’d sign on regardless, France and Germany would have folded like a wet kreplach…
A.L.
Klaatu, people over here had made up their minds long before they even knew who Rumsfeld was. If you think anti-Americanism started with Bush, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Well, because of the aforementioned opacity of diplomacy, it’s tough to show a way in which the gap could have been bridged. We don’t know what the real bottom lines of France, Germany and the USA were. If you KNOW, please tell us. Otherwise, any assignation of blame is somewhat speculative, isn’t it?
I do know that in the late fall or early winter of last year Chirac announced (made a public statement) that he had told the French armed forces to get ready for deployment in support of operations in Iraq. So the door was opened somewhat.
I do know from visits to Europe over the last year and watching some European media, that what was said about Europe (e.g. “Old Europe”) excited just about every anti-American or pacifist sentiment.
Just turn it around. What if the French were looking for our help and Chirac made statements denigrating our national virility or something?
Oh yes, W, I know all about the anti-American strain in Germany, having lived there during the 70s when bombs were going off on our bases. It was even tough to get laid that often, with our short hair (although I did get laid by one woman who really seemed to be doing it for political reasons, she was a hard core CSU Straussite (Franz Joseph, not Leo) a refugee from the Ost, who wanted to support the troops).
But polls indicate that the percentage of Germans who think favorably of the US has taken a big plunge during the last year.
A.L.,
You just don’t get it. We aren’t dealing with rational actors. We can’t convince them. We can only kill them, and we will. The financiers and facilitators of terrorists are terrorists too – that’s what conspiracy means. They can’t be convinced any more than the terrorists (those who simply pay danegeld are a different story). Joe reposted a link to Lee Harris’ article on the subject, in the Special Analysis – Imminent Threat thread, and I post it here too.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/031103A.html
Here are some pertinent portions:
“It is a common feature of much of the Arab world to entertain the illusion of viability. In a world that had abandoned the liberal system, they would have long been extirpated, or else – a far happier and more probable outcome – they would have rapidly shed their delusions for a more realistic manner of proceeding.
This gives a sense of Greek tragedy, with its dialectic of hubris and nemesis, to what has been unfolding in the Islamic world. If they continue to use terror against the West, their very success will destroy them. If they succeed in terrorizing the West, they will discover that they have in fact only ended by brutalizing it. And if subjected to enough stress, the liberal system will be set aside and the Hobbesian world will return – and with its return, the Islamic world will be crushed. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. And the only way to avoid this horrendous end is to bring the Islamic world back to sanity sooner rather than latter.”
“If we are to understand the measure of the present threat that we must realize that we are not fighting a Clausewitzian war, and there are immense dangers ahead of us if we do not squarely face the implications of this fact: they are not playing by the same rules of realism that we are. And it is this that renders so much public debate so historically dated.
The motivations of those who want to murder us are not complicated: To watch an American city go up into a fireball is its own reward.
This is the lesson that 9/11 should teach us in dealing with the fantasists of the Islamic world. A fantasy does not need to make any sense – that is the whole point of having one.”
You agreed with me that our victory over terror is assured and that the major question is how many Arabs survive the experience. But you disregard the implications of that, not that Lee Harris is willing to express those either.
We can’t convince the enemy. We can only kill them and remake the sick CULTURE which creates them. If that doesn’t work we will destroy that culture and most of its members.
P.S.,
The terrorist financiers/facilitators will either be eliminated by the security forces of their remade culture if we succeed in that endeavor, or by us along with almost everyone else within a hundred miles of them if we fail at remaking their culture. Either way they will be gone along with their more lethal co-conspirators.
>Trent, you do give Bush too much credit.
And the problem with you A.L., like most liberals, cannot credit Bush with the credit he has earned. What Bush is doing now is what he did before the 2002 election and the war in Iraq. The only difference this time around is the game he is playing with India.
>I’ll tell you what I would have done; I’d have
>had Colin Powell in Moscow and New Delhi laying
>out the quid pro quo, and making it clear that
>there was going to be a new coalition built, and
>they could be in it if they chose to – any why
>that would be good for them and for the world.
What makes you think this didn’t happen with other actors in the Bush Administration?
Condi Rice was a Sovietologist and Bush went out of his way to accomodate the Russians on Chechnya and publically supported Putin in the aftermath of the Chechen Suicide Bomber Theater Seige.
Both the Indians and Russians are acting strictly in accord with their internal factional power games. Nothing we could offer either nation’s ruling elites was worth the cost to their own power that visibly taking our bribes meant.
It’s interesting to note that even those of us who support the war on terror are starting to worry that Bush’s going wobbly.
That’s both good and bad, I suppose.
Good: people who misunderestimate Bush will keep getting unpleasant surprises.
Bad: when even people who support Bush on the war forget about the misunderestimation rule, I think it shows just how effective the quagmire crowd and the rest of the fifth column have been in undermining the support for war the past months, when their endless lies and slander have dominated the media coverage of the war.
A.L., there isn’t any reason to believe that we didn’t do all that you outline with Russia – overt cooperation with us must be limited by Putin for internal reasons. We’ve already spent our chips with India trying to keep a lid on the simmering war between them and Pakistan prior to the Iraq war.
klaatu wrote that “Jeez, I was going to stay out of this one”
But klaatu had already penned a screed on “incompetence” at September 4, 2003 01:25. So I didn’t drag him into something he had “stayed out of”.
As for the assertion that Bush should have proposed a Resolution on the occupation of Iraq last fall, that’s pure fantasy. It was only grudgingly that the French and Russians voted for something threatening “strong consequences”. The implication that they would have supported anything that assumed force would be used to topple Saddam is driven by partisanship, not thoughtfulness: klaatu puts unrealistic expectations on Bush because he hates him so much.
the lack of american-sponsored tv and radio in iraq is the result of transfering USIA assets to the State Department, which does not believe in it and does not like to promote u.s. values because they think it upsets people and is bad for relations.
It seems some of the authors over on NRO agree with me:
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may090503.asp
“September 5, 2003, 9:00 a.m.
Euro-Trashing
C’est le guerre.
How clever of President Bush.
On Tuesday, he had all Washington atwitter. Everyone — or at least every Democrat and all the “realistic” Republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel — was saying: “Hallelujah, Bush has finally seen the light!” At long last, he’s recognized “reality.” Thank goodness he’s swallowed his silly pride and shoved aside those nasty, nattering neocons and instructed his sensible Secretary of State to go to the U.N. to ask for the help America so obviously and so desperately needs.
But Bush, that sly old fox, knew what would happen next. Colin Powell would ask Jacques Chirac, Gerhardt Schroeder, and Kofi Annan, et al. nicely to lend a helping hand. Powell would diplomatically ignore the fact that these leaders of the international community had never had the slightest interest in seeing the day when the people of Iraq were liberated from the oppression of a murderous dictator.
Mr. Powell would tactfully make believe it was not true that they were, in fact, quite chagrined that the Americans had gone ahead and traded Iraqi’s stability for the sake of something as laughable as Iraqi freedom.
Mr. Powell would pretend, as a gentleman should, that our allies — they are our allies, aren’t they? — would welcome an invitation to participate in the historic effort to help Iraqis build a decent, free and prosperous nation, the first democracy in the Arab world.
And as Mr. Bush knew, for his trouble Mr. Powell would get slapped — very publicly — in the face.
And then the whole world — or at least the American voting public — would see that it wasn’t Bush who was being unreasonable and putting pride ahead of progress and all that. They’d see clearly that the lack of international cooperation is the fault of the European leaders — men who care not a fig about Iraq’s future but who love humiliating an American president, especially this American president.”
I watched the Chirac/Schroeder press conference in Dresden (it was on CSPAN2 last night; I was looking for the Demo debate).
While Chirac/Schroeder were critical of the initial proposal, it was hardly “a slap in the face.” It was: while we haven’t studied the US proposal in detail, we will, but it seems to us at first glance to need improvement, and we will consult with each other and come up with a response.
That’s called “negotiation.”
“My way or the highway” is not negotiation.
Once again, does anybody really know what everyone’s bottom line is? It’s above my security clearance level.
Oh by the way: Chuck Hagel for President!
Tom –
You say “You just don’t get it. We aren’t dealing with rational actors. We can’t convince them. We can only kill them, and we will.” the irrational madmen are a small population; whatr matters is the larger group they are embedded in which grants them support and a supply of new recruits to replace those we kill or capture. We either convince that larget population that supporting these folks is a Bad Idea, or we have to kill all of them.
Me, I’m for trying really hard to convince them first. It may work, if we’re serious about it. I certainly get that much.
A.L.
Trent, it’s kinda amusing to see an article from NRO quoted as being somehow dispositive of the issue. I can probably go pull an article out of TAP or The Nation to counter it, so can we acknowledge that it’s an open issue and just proceed to discuss it?
If as you suggest, this is some ‘second intention’ move by Bush to teach Powell and the doves (as well as Europe) a lession, it;s a damn expensive one. It makes us look weak and vacillating (which is exactly what encouraged Al Quieda to attack us in the first place); it does nothing that I can see to pull the logical ‘ad hoc’ allies – India and Russia – away from the U.N.; for that to work we’d have to enter into a real negotiation with France and Germany, and to do that is to acknowledge the legitimacy and power I for one don’t want to give them.
A.L.
Hey, what did you do to my weblog entry title? 😉
This reminds me of Eisenhower’s inexplicable press misnomers in 1940, one of most memorable being a caption underneath his photo reading “Lt. Col. D. D. Ersenbeing.”
I appreciate the nod, all the same!
Sorry Michael. Typo. Fixed now.
>Me, I’m for trying really hard to convince them
>first. It may work, if we’re serious about it. I
>certainly get that much.
And that is the reason liberals and Democrats cannot be trusted with Federal Executive power in war. They and you are as irrational as our Islamist foes.
Loser cultures breed the irrational actors and these actors hide behind those cultures. There is no way to negotiate or convince those cultures to be othewise. That is why they are called “Loser cultures.”
We are in a war of survival whose rules boil down to kill or be killed. There are no other options because our irrational foes leave us none. That is why they are called “irrational.”
We can either invade and reform Loser Arab-Muslim cultures at bayonet point, eliminating the sea in which the irrational actors swim in. Or we can eliminate the Loser cultures that breed our irrational foes, most likely with nuclear weapons.
Whatever else happens in this war, at the end of it, America will be secure at home. Whatever it takes.
Those like you who argue for negotiation or sweet reason, to the extent you are successful in the short run, grease the skids to a wider and more general genocide in the long run.
The heart of the matter is you cannot give a people freedom. You can give them an opportunity to earn it. The problems in Iraq are the Iraqis learning this lesson:
“The Tree of Liberty must be well watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
In Iraq we are winning. It is favorable ground because Saddam made it secular before we deposed him. That is why the Al-Qaeda Crazies are streaming in. They see Iraq as the critical battle between Secular Democracy and Islamism.
They are right and they are going to lose there.
>If as you suggest, this is some ‘second
>intention’ move by Bush to teach Powell and the
>doves (as well as Europe) a lession, it;s a damn
>expensive one.
You keep asking for Bush to do a campaign of convincing people to support the War Effort.
He is.
He is using events as a tool of education.
Bush isn’t trying to convince Democrats like you. He is educating the vast American middle.
As Dean’s candidacy is proving out, Bush can no more reach out to Democrats on the war than he can reach out to Al-Qaeda.
>it does nothing that I can see to pull the
>logical ‘ad hoc’ allies – India and Russia –
>away from the U.N.;
It is the nature of a test that those taking it sometimes fail.
Bush’s test here is to see whether the elites on Indian and Russia can see and act on their long term national interest over their short term factional interests.
The test is not meant to determine whether they will support us in Iraq. It is meant to determine whether or not their elites are rational actors on the international stage.
O.K., Trent, take a deep breath and wipe that foam off of your mouth.
I know this is a hard day for you, as the Rummy/Wolfie position is falling all around, the civilian geniuses in the Pentagon are hiding out, while General Zinni blasts them in a speech, to the thunderous applause of the Naval Institute. As described by Tom Ricks in the WaPo. That scurvy liberal, he wrote that book, “Making the Corps,” doesn’t he know that those Devil Dogs exist only for Our Master Strategy.
Let me ask you a question: how many countries do we have to invade?
To avoid that “more general genocide,” you talk about.
Klaatu,
Rummie is remaking the military. The Brass is having a bad case of the I don’t wanna’s. This is traditional.
In 1940 the branch chief of the US Army horse cavalry was arguing before Congress about how relevant to war horse cavalry was after the fall of Poland and France to German Panzers.
Events will decide the extent of our invasions and the body count in the Arab-Muslim world. War has more than one side after all.
As for the rest, this is from James Taranto’s Best of the Web:
Weasel Watch
What are we to make of the Bush administration’s decision to seek U.N. help keeping the peace in Iraq? Blogger Steven Den Beste has a hopeful interpretation: “Absent any other way to judge it, it seems to me that if [Jacques] Chirac and [Gerhard] Schröder hate it, then it can’t be all bad.”
And indeed the weasels in chief do hate it. “The leaders of France and Germany today rejected as insufficient the Bush administration’s proposal to give the United Nations a greater role in Iraq’s security and reconstruction, renewing a disagreement between Washington and the European allies most staunchly opposed to the war last spring,” The Washington Post reports. Yesterday’s London Daily Telegraph even quoted the always-charming Schroeder as saying the thought of German troops in Iraq makes him “want to puke.”
Den Beste says the U.S. military, “stretched to the limit,” needs relief, and the U.N. proposal, as described in the press, is not bad at all:
“Essentially, it would convert an Anglo-American occupation force into a “UN” force, but one which was still led by the US and UK, who would continue to be in charge and continue to make all the important decisions. It’s more or less cosmetic; it makes small concessions to the UN in exchange for letting us use their name, so as to give political cover to such nations as would like to offer troops but who view it is politically risky without the UN trademark. . . .
As to any formal UN administrative role, they’re invited to “facilitate” a “dialogue” to support the “political transition”. Which is token. It represents no real power whatever for the UN; no real ability to influence the course of events. The only practical way to measure the practical power of the UN is to consider its ability to obstruct US policy, and this doesn’t grant them any such power.”
At the same time, Bush’s domestic opponents seem to be falling into another one of his traps, just as they always do. Democrats are falling all over themselves to take the side of the chocolate makers in the argument over the U.N. resolution. This may be the only way of appealing to the party’s Angry Left base, but it seems a safe bet that most Americans will side with their own country.
Trent,
How soon have we forgotten our history?
** “And that is the reason liberals and Democrats cannot be trusted with Federal Executive power in war. They and you are as irrational as our Islamist foes.” (snip)
Wasn’t Woodrow Wilson (WWI) a Democrat? And I think FDR (WWII) was also a Democrat? Also, Harry Truman (WWII/Korea/Containment Strategy) was also a Democrat.
Our foes and friends are indeed rational – in their own perspective. Their “irrationality” is really OUR inability to understand WHY they are behaving in a manner that seems not to make sense. Too frequently, our mirro imaging leads us to “misunderstimate” what is going on.
True Patriot, you’re engagiing in a little mirror imaging of your own. It’s one thing to say our foes behave according to a different code, quite another to say they are behaving rationally.
Indeed, this seemingly minor distinction encompasses most of the key complaint Islam has against the West – that is to say, precisely the value placed on rationality and the traditions, structures, etc. that have grown up to support it. Seen in that light, the Muslim world’s rage AND centuries-long stagnation are both thrown into sharper relief.
Scond, Trent has expressed his thesis about the Democrats many times before. His past writings have always pegged 1968 as the key breakpoint, and the defection of the sensible wing of the “Reagan Democrats” to Reagan in 1980 as finishing the job. So, bringing out pre-1968 Democrats means you’re talking past his argument rather than to it. Trent, you may want to find a quick way to express that distinction consistently, given its prominence in your argument.
Regardless, the hopeless and untrustworthy state of the current crop of Democrats on national security speaks for itself.
T.P.
The Democratic party of Wilson and FDR is dead.
The Democrats of today haven’t been a real broad based American political party for a generation. They are merely a series of special interest groups dedicated to their various domestic government-client relationships.
Nothing outside their government-client nexis is real to them save as competitors for the same federal resources. Anything outside those government-client relationships is an evil Republican plot to steal food from the mouths of the needy — i.e. Democratic interest groups.
If you want a quick thumbnail sketch, the Democrats are the party of government. The Republicans are the party of government subsidies. The former requires large government bureaucracies. The latter only requires someone to write a check.
For various reasons relating to world trade, religion and nativist xenophobia in the various Republican factions, the outside world is real to Republicans in a way it is not for Democrats.
The Military for Democrats is a source of pork and a means of doing “meals on wheels” to undeserving foreigners when those foreigners have bought or are related to a Democratic interest group.
The Military for Republicans is also a source of pork, but it is also used to protect trade and kill bad guys “outside the American tribe.”
That is why only the Republicans can be trusted with Federal executive power in this war.
As for the Arabs, go an read this article about the Arab Fantasy Ideology at this link :
http://denbeste.nu/external/Harris01.html
“The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves: It was a spectacular piece of theater. The targets were chosen by al Qaeda not through military calculation — in contrast, for example, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — but entirely because they stood as symbols of American power universally recognized by the Arab street. They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam and that the end of the reign of the Great Satan was at hand?”
“For various reasons relating to world trade, religion and nativist xenophobia in the various Republican factions, the outside world is real to Republicans in a way it is not for Democrats.
The Military for Democrats is a source of pork and a means of doing “meals on wheels” to undeserving foreigners when those foreigners have bought or are related to a Democratic interest group.
The Military for Republicans is also a source of pork, but it is also used to protect trade and kill bad guys “outside the American tribe.”
That is why only the Republicans can be trusted with Federal executive power in this war.”
what a shame we have to choose between stupid and evil (take your pick of which one is which based on your own partisan ideology). anyone up for starting a real party? byoi. (bring yer own intoxicants)
>what a shame we have to choose between stupid
>and evil (take your pick of which one is which
>based on your own partisan ideology). anyone up
>for starting a real party? byoi. (bring yer own
>intoxicants)
The choice here is between those who are suicidal with American national security (Democrats) and those who are not (Republicans).
And in my religion, suicide is a sin.
The Washington Times had a four-part series excerpting sections from Richard Miniter’s book “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror.”
It shows how the entire Democratic national political establishment failed in fighting terrorism. The article links below are in chronological order with the article title under the link.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102358-9367r.htm
Bill Clinton’s failure on terrorism
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030902-090708-9154r.htm
Bill Clinton’s indifference
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030903-090216-5822r.htm
Unprepared for battle
what i was ever so eloquently saying trent was that its no choice at all to have to choose between suicidal and “not-suicidal”. simply being not suicidal isnt good enough. it shouldnt be good enough for any of us. i doubt that suicide is the only sin in your religion. i dont think we have a healthy political process if we have to choose betwen total catastrophe vs barely subsisting. where is the option to thrive, grow, and kick some serious ass?
If Clinton was doing such a poor job fighting terrorism, what were the concrete actions that the Bush team took to beef up the efforts… before 9-11. Must’ve all been top secret! Hindsight is always 20-20.
lurker –
I think it’s pretty clear that the Bush folks were – well, not highly alert – before 9/11. I’ll also suggest some measure of self-serving in the ex-Clinton staff’s “I told you so’s” afterward.
I do think there is a big, and important, difference between the Bush and Clinton approaches, which has been widely commented upon – terrorism as crime vs. terrorism as war.
Clinton’s folks were pretty good as terrorism as crime….but the levels of terrorism just increased, in spite of their successes.
So I vote for the ‘terrorism is war’ appropach, myself.
A.L.
For truly wonderful academic support for Trent’s cynical post about the _current_ national security posturings of the two political policies, see this book:
_Defining the National Interest_ by Peter Trubowitz. Here’s the Amazon URL:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226813037/qid=1062962248/sr=12-1/103-6907692-7678258?v=glance&s=books
Hint: it’s about money – how the different economic interests of America’s political sections influence, if not dominate, American foreign policy and partisan politics. And how those differ over time in comically cynical ways.
A.L.
I agree with the ‘terrorism is war’ approach too… at least I do now. If it was SO obvious BEFORE 9-11, then Bush should be tarred with the same brush as Clinton. The policy didn’t get changed until afterwards. It just gets so old listening to the ‘Blame Clinton first’ crowd…..
I agree that in the months between the Bush inauguration and the Sept 11 incident, that the Bush administration had not turned around the attitude toward terrorism. But they had made some beginning changes albeit far too slowly.
The real reason for examining the Clinton record is to rebut the partisanship of the Clintons and Al Gore in criticising the Bush admin’s actions post-Sept 11.
To an extent, hindsight is 20/20 and the Clinton administration wasn’t alone in its indolent attitude toward fighting terrorism.
Balagan,
Avoiding the sin of suicide leaves you the opportunity to commit, repent, and forgive other sins, i.e. there is your opportunity for growth
There is no opportunity for anything else once you are dead.
The issue is if you want to live in a secure for Americans world, voting Republican is your only short term option. After victory, all bets are off. But we have to win first.
The war against al-Qaeda will continue under Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Clark or just about any possible Democratic nominee except maybe Kucinich or Sharpton, who of course have no chance to win.
I trust them with having the good judgment and good faith to continue that fight, as well as the political savvy not to want to get caught napping and be held responsible for a disaster.
Plus, the institutional momentum in that fight is just too great for it to stop: the military, CIA and Homeland Security are there, the structures are in place, the people are employed and want to keep their jobs.
I will give credit to Bush for prosecuting that fight pretty well.
In fact, could it be that we really had al-Qaeda beaten?
Maybe they had one big shot, pulled off a brilliant operation, but now they will never have the leadership, resources, personnel and opportunity again.
Of course, they will be a threat for many years, but they are a threat in a context of many modern threats, more easily classified by the means than by the ends: bioterror (e.g. anthrax in the mail), rogue nukes, truck bombs (e.g. Oklahoma City), snipers, etc.
The topic was Iraq, though. Did that help or hurt the fight against al-Qaeda?
Does the effect of the so-called “flypaper” thesis equal the effect of the image of apparent aggression, followed by non-feasance, in the Arab/Muslim world?
Is it better to invade and remake these coutries by force, or to combat and contain the threat of the extremists, and let globalization transform the societies?
Even Powell and Rice expressed concern on the talk shows today about the opportunity that a chaotic Iraq would present for the al-Qaedistas.
These are not partisan Democratic concerns: I’m an independent and was a McCainiac in 2000. I voted for Dole in 1996, Clinton in 92.
In all honesty, though, think of this: what if a Clinton administration went against the recommendation of the Army Chief of Staff on force levels for an operation, and that operation ended up having the type of problems we’re having.
Can you imagine?
klaatu writes: “I trust them with having the good judgment and good faith to continue that fight, as well as the political savvy not to want to get caught napping and be held responsible for a disaster.”
I’m baffled as to how any of them have shown any of these characteristics. They’ve all shown bad faith and poor judgement by their own terms. For example, Kerry’s waffling on his own vote for the Iraq resolution is a prime example.
Come on, klaatu, you are going to have to do much better.
thats why im voting for bush in 04 and doing everything i can to support the growth of independent candidates for 06 and beyond trent. show me a good republican other than for pres in 04 (and maybe 08 if rice managed to be the candidate) and ill be happy to vote for them. just dont expect me to give republicans a free pass just because skilled, talented, and competitive democracts are nonexistant. its one thing to be realistic about the lack of options short term (and i mean really short), but dont use that as cover to sit back and do nothing about it.
klaatu, the war isnt against alqaeda, which is why i dont trust any of the democrats with my life or the countless other lives on the line. i will vote for the best candidate in the democratic party (living in new york there isnt much point in being registered as anything else) for the primary… which means dean so far, and i will vote for the best candidate in the general election… which means bush without any doubt. because trent is absolutely right that any other choice is suicide.
i feel the need to make something a little more clear. im not just talking about voting for bush in 04. i will do everything i can to persuade every single person i know and all of those i come in contact with between now and then to do the same. i have a feeling that there are a whole lot of other non-republicans who are becoming more and more committed to the same sentiment. the reality of what is involved in this war and what it is all about just goes beyond anything the democrats could possibly offer in this election.
klaatu wrote: “In all honesty, though, think of this: what if a Clinton administration went against the recommendation of the Army Chief of Staff on force levels for an operation, and that operation ended up having the type of problems we’re having.
Can you imagine?”
Yes, I can imagine. But I don’t have to. It was called Mogadishu. Book/film title “Blackhawk Down”.
Innouncement!!!