The New York Times didn’t like it. The Washington Post was lukewarm. The netroots dismissed it. The right embraced it.
I could make this the shortest post in the history of The House and just leave it at that but then, what fun would that be?
After more than 4 years of war, several different failed strategies for success, three commanding generals, two elections, 70,000 dead Iraqis, 26,000 wounded Americans, and 3700 dead patriots, the single most telling aspect of the debate over the war is how little it has changed. The same arguments, the same criticisms of each side, and we all end up in the same place; irreconcilably divided.
George Bush may think there are some Americans who want to bring the troops home now that would jump at the chance to embrace his token withdrawal of American forces. But on Capitol Hill and other places where it counts – the newsrooms and control rooms of the American media – he has zero chance of finding additional support for his policies.
Whatever small bump in political support the President received this past week was due solely to the calm, unhurried, and forthright testimony of General David Petraeus. Nothing Bush said last night altered the debate. There is nothing he can say about Iraq that will deflect the long term trend toward withdrawal. Both parties are in favor of it, albeit with different objectives. The Iraq Tar Baby has well and truly captured the Republican party and only the stupidity of the Democrats will save the GOP from total disaster in 2008. And perhaps not even then.
The Democrats have cynically tried to exploit the unpopularity of the war while trying to undermine the efforts of Petraeus and Co. who may have hit upon a strategy that will allow us to leave behind something less than roses and buttermilk but also something considerably less than total disaster. In fact, the Dems have failed to acknowledge any change in strategy at all and when they have, they switch tactics and go after General Petraeus by attacking him personally – a dubious strategy that has already backfired spectacularly (see above, “...stupidity of Democrats…”).
What we have seen this past week with the Petraeus testimony and the Bush speech is that facts don’t matter as much as political calculation with regards to the war. No one has been swayed by anything anyone has said about what is happening in Iraq. And no one is likely to be affected in the future by any arguments or even facts on the ground coming out of that country. Everyone’s mind appears to be made up except for a handful of GOP Senators and Congressmen who know what they believe about the war but have not quite taken the step of abandoning the President yet. That may change by January when the funding issue is revisited. Until then, Petreaus gets to continue his good work, hoping to build upon his small successes while Bush can try to push a reluctant Iraqi government toward at least the appearance of reconciliation.
We have been at this point in the Iraq debate for close to two years and nothing has changed. I suppose that there is some benefit of reiterating the same positions over and over, if only to remind us of how very far apart we are on this and other issues. Perhaps that reminder will spur us to greater efforts to bridge the gap between the two sides so that we can find an honorable way out of Iraq without leaving behind a Middle East blood bath but I’m doubting it.
For that to happen, someone would have to make the first move. And as it stands now, both sides are too proud, too rigid to make that happen.
8:54 am
“For that to happen, someone would have to make the first move. And as it stands now, both sides are too proud, too rigid to make that happen.”
What sort of first move would you suggest?
10:42 am
Rick,
To piggyback on my previous reply to yet another wearisome, pessimistic post of yours, something tells me:
a) Your childhood nickname was “Sunshine.”
b) At college beer parties, you were always the first guy to stick a lampshade on your head.
Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and All the Blessed Saints, get a grip, chin up, and get back on your meds.
Furthermore, pray allow me to impart this mportant tit-bit of political advice: “Nothing is ever as good as it looks but, then again, nothing is ever as bad as it looks either.”
11:09 am
I don’t ubderstand why there’s a collective blind spot toward the huge pink elephant sitting in the room. There’s only one thing
everybodyis actually fighting over – trillions of dollars worth of oil. It’s the only reason we are all interested in the outcome, and the only reason to prepare for a long term stay in Iraq. We’ve placed our energy bet and there’s no way either party will fold this hand.11:23 am
It is telling that not one in the Democrat (and I emphasize Democrat, not Democratic) Party has said the word VICTORY. As for the Oil, would you really rather Iran have it? No huge pink elephant sitting in the room, just a Republican elephant. Thank Goodness
11:24 am
TW said:
“It’s the only reason we are all interested in the outcome, and the only reason to prepare for a long term stay in Iraq. We’ve placed our energy bet and there’s no way either party will fold this hand.”
Who do you think made us dependent on all that nasty foreign oil instead of energy independence with domestic exploration and production? HUH???
12:09 pm
The left and cooky environmentalists (this constitutes the majority of the Democratic Party) who will not let us drill here and explore off the coast of Florida, etc. It’s strange that China and Mexico are can.
1:03 pm
Rick, the name of your blog is misleading. You’ve been saying some very smart—and not overly-partisan—stuff about the war recently, and this is just the latest example.
1:20 pm
So now Jeb Bush and his brother are members of “the left and cooky environmentalists”??
You do realize that it was George W. Bush who refused to allow exploration in the Destin Dome area of the Gulf at the request of his brother right?
1:26 pm
#1
First move would be for the Democrats to stop making political hay out of the specter of failure in Iraq. It boggles the mind such a despicable tactic would be employed at a time when U.S. forces are in harm’s way, no less by people who continually catapult the propaganda about how they “support the troops” and Republicans/conservatives don’t.
Of course the moonbats who continue to insist “Bush is not my president” or “it’s Bush’s war, not mine” are still out of their hateful, illogical, BDS-addled minds, but it’s hard to blame them completely when a bipartisan action by Congress authorized the war, yet now one of those parties is attempting to disavow ownership of it after the going got tough and public approval waned.
Democrats could be showing backbone and leadership, standing strong in the face of a fickle, war-weary public and making the best of a bad situation they helped to initiate, but instead these hypocritical cowards are preemptively declaring an on-going mission to be “a failure” on the one hand, while continuing to fund it on the other, and somehow being allowed by their constituency to reconcile this obviously self-serving and conflicted behavior under the false pretense “Bush lied us into war” in the first place.
1:32 pm
Speaking of China, they took a look at the global energy market and embarked on a 20 year program to build a new nuke plant every two years. I’m actually in favor of staying in Iraq now that we’ve placed that bet. Nuke plants were our only other option and the politics against that is even worse than against staking our claim in the Middle East.
It’s just a shame that our leadership can’t just come out and say “Look folks, we’ve had a good run on cheap energy, but the only way we can maintain our standard of living is to get tough about protecting our energy sources. We had to justify this war by other reasoning in order to dance around some treaties we’ve signed. So stop complaining and know we’re going to be there a while.”
1:39 pm
The way out is for independents and moderate republicans to force Bush to end this thing.
I suspect you’re going to see a lot of nervous Republicans in January when the ‘blush’ the surge has brought wears off.
2:42 pm
Chip mentions something important—Congress merely “authorized” war, didn’t “declare” it. The President was authorized to act in good faith on the best info he could get. There was never a Congressional authorization for Bush to act in bad faith (e.g., cherry-picking evidence, proceeding without a back-up plan or exit strategy) or on his “gut” rather than expert info (e.g., ignoring Gen. Shinseki on needed troop levels and never even talking to George H.W. Bush, who had unique experience).
It’s not Congress that’s backing out of a bargain, it’s Bush who never held up his end.
2:44 pm
“The way out is for independents and moderate republicans to force Bush to end this thing.”
Ok, how do we end it without leaving behind a disaster?
Or, do you have no problems in withdrawing to leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the slaughter?
It’s pretty nice to be able to live in this great country of ours and not have to worry about such trivial matters as having people beat, rape, and murder our families with impunity. [sarcasm off]
2:59 pm
johnmc:
Let’s just say that if they want to kill themselves I’m not going to pretend to shed crocodile tears over it. They aren’t worth a single American life.
3:38 pm
...”so that we can find an honorable way out of Iraq without leaving behind a Middle East blood bath”
so you still think there is a pony buried somewhere in this pile of steaming dung?
unbelievable that you can even write “an honorable way out”. WE screwed up. we have created a situation that has no good ending. ALL possible scenarios are awful…more awful for the Iraqis than for the US. but maybe if i just chant “victory! victory!” (for Juan the NeoCon) we’ll find the pony.
4:21 pm
“First move would be for the Democrats to stop making political hay out of the specter of failure in Iraq.”
OK. First step for Republicans would be to acknowledge the failure of this war and start to talk about what they should do to mitigate this failure. In order to do this they would have to step back from threatening Iran.
6:48 pm
“maybe if i just chant “victory! victory!†(for Juan the NeoCon) we’ll find the pony.”
Sorry, Dear –
It’s too late for the Dems to pull their masks off. They did that back in January. Although we already knew how they were. Spinless cowards
9:06 pm
@johnmc:
“Ok, how do we end it without leaving behind a disaster?
Or, do you have no problems in withdrawing to leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the slaughter?”
Let me turn this around—do you think that there’s not a slaughter occuring right now with us there?
Stay—Iraqis get slaughtered, its a chaotic bloodbath, and more Americans die.
Leave—Iraqis get slaughtered, its a chaotic bloodbath, and fewer Americans die.
Given these two choices, I choose #2. Yes, its a huge stain on our honor. Don’t blame leaving for that. Blame going in.
9:42 am
#18
This may be a bit nuanced for your “progressive” mind to grasp, but assuming an equivalent “chaotic bloodbath” in both stay/leave scenarios is the height of delusion, deception or denial.
Still looking to divisively place blame instead of mutually seek answers? That’s another move right out of the “progressive” playbook.
9:55 am
#16
You just don’t get it. Not only does using words like “failure” to describe an on-going mission work against the “good guys” having a productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy, but worse yet it only serves as more fodder for the enemy’s propaganda mill.
2:44 pm
@ chip:
“Not only does using words like “failure†to describe an on-going mission work against the “good guys†having a productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy, but worse yet it only serves as more fodder for the enemy’s propaganda mill.”
Are you saying its not a failure, or that it is, but we just shouldn’t say it out loud? Would you be happier with “failing” instead of “failure”? How about “not achieving successful outcomes?” If we all stood up and loudly decalred we were winning, the enemy propaganda mill would run out of bad things to say? Whenever war critics voice their concerns, the usual response is “you’re aiding the enemy.” No. Screwing up this war from day one is aiding the enemy. Denying the reality of our current situation only makes it more difficult to find a solution.
You want a “productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy”—I can’t speak for the entire anti-war population, but go ahead. I’m willing to listen to productive discussion/debate. The trouble is, I haven’t heard alot. Mabye thats my “liberal Leftie bias”, and I’m not hearing all the other options being offered by the reasoned Right side. Please, school me. I’m being serious . . . I haven’t heard a plan for even a close cousin to success yet from anybody (Right, Left, Center, Insane, anybody), and at this point if Satan himself rose from the depths and had a coherent plan, I’d give it serious consideration.
p.s.—“let’s keep doing the same damn thing that hasn’t worked so far and hope the Iraqis fix the problem so we can take credit for it” isn’t going to count. Neither is “lets keep shooting bad guys until they are all dead”.
p.p.s.—“equivilant bloodbath”. In time or scope? Yes, we leave, the place blows up. No doubt. Are you saying that the steady rates of murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bombings, etc. that are occuring under our presence will lead to fewer overall deaths, displacement, and misery that the place blowing up? Possibly, but thats just a guess on your part. We’re propping up a dam that has water pouring thru holes. If we leave, the dam comes down and the place floods rapidly. If we hold the dam up . . .its still gonna flood, it’ll just take a little longer.
8:10 am
“You just don’t get it. Not only does using words like “failure†to describe an on-going mission work against the “good guys†having a productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy, but worse yet it only serves as more fodder for the enemy’s propaganda mill.”
If you can’t accept the word “failure” then you are not willing to look at the reality of what has happened. If you are not willing to start from there then how can we go forward.
Forget the propeganda mill, and the forward looking policy. To plan where you want to be, you must first work out where you are.
The most pervasive problem in thinking is that many people are still trying to plan a way to victory, where the options available are only a range between catastrophe and failure.
And that is why the idea of the two groups producing coherent policy by working together is a joke. If you think that the thing is lost, you are trying to minimise the loss. If you think that it can be won then you take chances to try to get to that winning position. The two approaches have no middle ground.
Think about it from, say, a retail store’s perspective. The company is doing badly. Some people who think that there is a chance advocate a new, revolutionary fall fashin line, streamlining some stores and revamping the delivery system. Others who think that the company is bankrupt want to freeze the bank accounts, protect the pension fund and call in the receivers.
In this case there is no middle ground. Each starting assumption leads to completely different actions and goals.