Running around Capitol Hill, their white flags flapping majestically in the breeze, Senate Democrats have desperately been searching for Republican allies to help them in their quest to hand Iraq to the forces of death and destruction.
To be sure, the Bush Administration has spent much of the last 4 1/2 years doing the same thing, albeit not trying quite as hard and with considerably less planning. But for the Democrats and their hard and fast timetable for withdrawal of the bulk of American troops (and if the netnuts get their way, there won’t be a corporal’s guard left by the time the withdrawal is done), there don’t appear to be too many takers among Republicans:
Senate Democrats, who have spent weeks trying to woo Republicans to help end the war in Iraq, have taken a hard turn against compromise.They now believe their best political strategy is to continue to play to a stalemate and blame an intransigent President Bush and his Republican congressional allies for refusing to negotiate an end to the war.
This is actually the safest political strategy possible. Knowing full well that pulling out the troops the way they are advocating would lead to a bloodbath, the Democrats will seek to cash in on people’s war weariness in 2008 by pointing out the obvious; that it was Republicans who got the country in this mess in the first place.
Not that people are liable to forget the previous 4 years of blunders, stupidities, mistakes, and miscalculations that have contributed in no small way to the chaos in Iraq today. But politicians like to think of the American people as children, the difference being the Dems want to play nanny to all of us while Republicans think it best that voters be seen and not heard. So rather than act like grown-ups themselves and cooperate on an Iraq policy that would serve our interests while allowing us to disengage, leaving behind something less than an unmitigated disaster, the two parties insist on playing “Pin the tail on the party that lost the War.”
“We haven’t found much movement with the Republicans. They seem to be sticking with the president,†Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday. “I think they’ve decided they definitely want this to be the Republican Senate’s war, not just Bush’s [war]. They’re jealous. They don’t want him to have it as only his war.â€
That’s our Harry. First, last, and always the fool. Of course GOP Senators aren’t “jealous” of Bush nor do they ” want him to have it as only his war.” That may be the silliest political barb tossed on Capitol Hill this century. In fact, it’s borderline incoherent which makes one ask what time of day he was quoted and from which Capitol Hill watering hole Harry was coming from.
The calculus for getting the 60 votes needed to end the GOP filibuster on Iraq legislation apparently became too difficult for Reid to achieve, and a compromise could have forced anti-war Democrats to vote on softer goals for troop withdrawal, something staunchly opposed by the party’s base.So Reid has forged ahead with an aggressive list of Iraq proposals, including a key amendment that would place hard timetables on troop withdrawal, shifting the mission in Iraq for U.S. forces from combat to supporting the Iraqi security forces, and completing the deployment.
Reid’s move essentially brings to an abrupt halt the delicate lobbying Democrats had engaged with moderate Republican senators whom they thought were vulnerable on the war issue.
Does anyone actually believe that the “base” would be satisfied with “shifting the mission in Iraq” to supporting Iraqi security forces? This has always been the dirty little secret of the Democrat’s “timetable.” No one is going to be “supporting” the Iraqi security forces. That’s because for the foreseeable future – 2 to 3 years according to the report issued by retired General James Jones – we will have to take the lead in operations involving the Iraqi army and police because only 6 or 7 brigades are judged competent enough to go it alone with Americans in support and advisory positions.
What this means is that beyond the 30,000 or so troops expected to be gone by next summer, there isn’t a whole lot we can do to reduce our troop commitment without severely damaging Iraqi security. But this isn’t about Iraqi security or American interests or fighting al-Qaeda, or any other military/political goal we might aspire to. This is about the raw, cynical use of politics by the Democrats in calculated effort to garner as many votes in 2008 as possible. That, gentle readers, is the bottom line. And what is truly shocking is that the Dems aren’t even trying to hide this fact from anybody. They are boasting about it. They are glorying in the notion of it. They are congratulating themselves, patting themselves on the back for being so clever.
But hey! Don’t call them unpatriotic.
The Iraq Tar Baby has well and truly trapped both parties. Unless Dennis Kucinich is elected president, the next Commander in Chief will come into office facing exactly the same situation in Iraq on January 20, 2009 that George Bush faced on January 19, 2009 and will have to manage the situation in Iraq so that the kind of disaster that would surely follow any “hard” timetables for withdrawal currently being pushed by Democrats can be avoided.
Some are grumbling about Bush “kicking the can down the road” so that withdrawal will be up to his successor. That may be true but I doubt whether the President – any president – would prefer that to be the case. Nor should Democrats fear that anyone who hasn’t lived in a cave for the last four years will blame them for any disasters that would befall Iraq or the Middle East following an American exit – unless they force a withdrawal under the worst possible circumstances and at the worst possible time as they are advocating now.
Simply put, the “hard” timetable pushed by the Democrats will not end up with any kind of “redeployment” but rather a full scale retreat for which their rabid base has been agitating these last few years. To pretend otherwise is to ignore both political reality and the cynicism of those who promote the surrender of American interests in Iraq to the forces of death and destruction.
8:32 am
“Some are grumbling about Bush “kicking the can down the road†so that withdrawal will be up to his predecessor.”
I think he’s setting the Dems up for the ‘08 election. If they campaign on a ‘get out now’ theme and are elected to the White House, Republicans will be able to blame everything bad that happens afterwards on them; whether it’s connected or not.
Talk about cynical!
9:19 am
War Of Anti-War, Pro-War Protesters…
Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters, including a sizeable contingent of military veterans, rall…
9:22 am
Right on. We must never surrender. Victory (however it is defined this week) must be achieved. Not until every last one of MY tax dollars is in the hands of a defense contractor. Not until every last drop of MY oil has been pumped from beneath their sand will we have achieved victory.
I can’t wait to vacation in Iraq 25 years from now. I’ll sit on the beach eating McDonalds fries and sipping Coca-Cola while I watch the majestic oil tankers chug past. Sounds like utopia. Smells like victory!
9:30 am
Are you really ignorant enough to say that there is only one way to leave Iraq, that the only way is the Democrat’s way?
What an idiot.
Nowhere in the post do I use the word “victory” which makes me think you never read it in the first place – something you do on a regular basis which only proves you are too stupid to comment here.
9:56 am
. . .act like grown-ups themselves and cooperate on an Iraq policy that would serve our interests . . .
And what might that policy be? I sure don’t see any suggestions in your article. Anything that isn’t done George W. Bush’s way will not even come to a vote. Even if legislation is passed it will be vetoed and the veto will be upheld by Republicans.
What is there the Democrats could pass with Republican support that would “serve our interests” that would not be vetoed by President Bush? I can’t think of a thing. Reid is only facing reality when he abandons trying to pass legislation on withdrawal from Iraq.
The future course in Iraq will be settled in the 2008 elections. That’s how it works and that is how it is supposed to work.
10:26 am
[...] Others: Captain’s Quarters, New York Times, Think Progress, The Huffington Post, Right Wing Nut House, The Corner, Macsmind, The Raw Story, The Carpetbagger Report, TPM Election Central, NewsBusters.org, Kiko’s House, The Gate and Crooks and Liars Technorati Tags: Iraq, War, Politics, Democrats, Congress, Senate, Government, Taxpayers [...]
10:53 am
I can’t wait until the 2008 elections when Republicans and other endless-war supporters have their asses handed to them. Face it—most Americans want us out of this debacle, they want us out soon—the Bush and Petraeus dog-and-pony show only INCREASED this number.
11:00 am
“Some are grumbling about Bush “kicking the can down the road†so that withdrawal will be up to his successor.”
We’re now building bases along the Iraq-Iran border, ostensibly to stop the flow of Iranian weapons and other forms of influence in Iraq. The other reason, not widely discussed, is to manage any blowback from the upcoming sea and air campaign against Iran.
The point is, the near elimination of Iranian influence in Iraq (if it works out that way) will likely change the political calculus among Iraqi factions dramatically… hopefully leading to a broad reconciliation. In any case, the situation in Iraq cannot realistically be isolated from that of the broader middle east, which seems to be rapidly coming to a head.
11:22 am
the near elimination of iranian influence? iran has far more influence today than ever. the south is basically an iranian state. and maliki is clearly a friend to them. face it their influence is not going away…we have made sure of that. i agree iraq cannot be seperated from the broader middle east…although that is clearly what cheney thought when he dreamt up this debacle.
11:43 am
“iran has far more influence today than ever.”
Yes, it does today, largely because of the misguided policy of not confronting them directly until very recently.
“i agree iraq cannot be seperated from the broader middle east…although that is clearly what cheney thought when he dreamt up this debacle.”
I don’t believe he thought that…
Step 1: Afghanistan
Step 2: Iraq
Step 2.5: Iran (not occupation, but neutralization)
Step 2.5a: Syria (isolated, contained, maybe flipped)
Step 3: Hamas
Step 3.1: Moderate (sort-of) Palestinian state
It’ll be ugly, but it might just work.
11:54 am
forget whether we even had a right to go into iraq, much less pursue any of the other actions you list…it’s a major leap to even think about dreaming that it might have even a miniscule chance at working. you aren’t even describing a napoleonic march across the middle east…you are describing a multi-generational imperialistic crusade. of course that is your right…i just hope wiser minds prevail.
11:59 am
“the near elimination of iranian influence? iran has far more influence today than ever. the south is basically an iranian state. and maliki is clearly a friend to them. face it their influence is not going away…we have made sure of that. i agree iraq cannot be seperated from the broader middle east…although that is clearly what cheney thought when he dreamt up this debacle.”
Jay Said,
Ummmm, errr, uhhhh, what makes you think the Iraqis (be they Shiite or Sunni) would be any less of a pain in the ass to the Iranians than they’ve been to us? Indeed, what do the Iranians have to offer Iraqis other than their delightful brand of poverty, ignorance, brutality, and religious insanity? I’m willing to bet that many Iraqi Shiites (who happen to be Arabs) would quickly turn their AK’s and RPG’s on their erstwhile Persian “brothers and liberators” if the mullahs were truly idiotic enough to attempt an occupation of southern Mesopotamia.
Oh, and please explain to the rest of the class how Iraq is a “debacle.” Compared to what? Saddam with nukes? Iraq morphed into “Al Qaedastan?” Well?
Important safety tip: when making your assertions, try to include some evidence supporting them rather than assuming “it’s all so self-evident” to everyone else.
12:09 pm
Rick,
I’m saying no such thing. I’m saying that there is NO way to leave Iraq. Period. The democrats are gigantic pussies. The republicans are so corrupt and inept at leadership that it makes me cringe. What’s an ordinary independent citizen supposed to do?
Look, here’s the thing… The US is a mega super power. This, I understand. I love it, in fact because I live here. Now, as such, the US needs to do some of the most horrible sh!t imaginable in order to stay a super power. You can either be blissfully unaware of this, or you can grudgingly accept that that’s the way things are.
My problem with this nightmare is this; I want George Bush to stop pretending that he’s “leading†a country full of retards. Stop talking down to me like I can’t possibly comprehend the enormity of ‘the plan’, whatever the f*ck that is. Ok?
So, we are in Iraq for one of two reasons, and I can’t quite figure out which one it is. Maybe you can help.
1)We’re there because some day Jesus will return to the Earth and magically whisk away all the evangelicals while the rest of us burn in hell for all eternity. Thus, we need to protect Israel at all costs because the Bible says… blah blah blah.
2)The US is a mega super power and as such we do not want to become anything less. Thus, we must control enough of the worlds energy supply to continue being awesome. Energy = power, and energy, in this case, happens to be in the form of oil. If it were in the form of ice, we’d be fighting for Greenland right now.
#2 is something I can accept. I like being on the wining team, in this case despite the teams methods. In order to be number one and continue commerce and the flow of cash, bad things have to happen. Third world countries have to be turned into banana plantations. That’s life. That, I can grudgingly deal with. My issue is with #1. That’s the one that scares the crap out of me.
If my tax dollars go towards #2, then fine. I can deal with that. But, if I’m paying for the Ted Haggards and the George Bush’s of the world to play out their idiotic fantasies with the BLOOD OF MY FRIENDS and MY TAX DOLLARS, then those people can go f*ck themselves. They’ll never get my support or vote or donation and my only defense at this point has been cynicism. Sorry.
12:10 pm
“[...] you are describing a multi-generational imperialistic crusade.”
It’s not imperialism, it’s gunboat diplomacy that started with T. Roosevelt (indeed, even before that) and has never abated. It’s the only language tyrants and belligerants understand. We have always, to the best of our ability, used whatever means necessary to keep a lid on the world’s hotspots and secure our (and our allies’) strategic interests. There’s nothing new here. Before Viet Nam, liberal Democrats were usually leading the charge (and Republicans were often the isolationists). There are very good reasons Democrats are no longer trusted with national security (though B. Clinton was not altogether terrible).
12:11 pm
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 09/19/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
12:12 pm
People:
Thank you. That’s the most coherent thing you’ve ever written here.
12:22 pm
I think there’s been a shift in the tectonic plates deep under the ocean of the national psyche. The tsunami that that shift will unleash is likely to wash away the Democratic advantage in 2008. The cause of the tectonic shift? Greenspan admitting in the open what we’ve all suppressed these many years – the Iraq war is about economic stability and energy security.
It’s going to take a while for voters to absorb and accept that the war is being waged for reasons mostly to do with simple national economic interests. A bit less laudable than spreading democracy, not as sexy as fighting terrorists. But once voters do internalize the real motivation for the war, the anti-war contingent will start to look very unappealing.
I predict that Republican candidates will seize on this shift and start asking questions like: Why shouldn’t we maintain our standard of living? Why should our children face a diminished society? Why not buy some time with a dependable oil supply provided by (yet another) client state in the Middle East while we develop alternative energy sources?
There are no really good retorts. That tsunami is gathering power as we speak and I just hope the leftroots don’t force the Democratic candidates into saying things that will crash over them later.
12:23 pm
“Nor should Democrats fear that anyone who hasn’t lived in a cave for the last four years will blame them for any disasters that would befall Iraq or the Middle East following an American exit – unless they force a withdrawal under the worst possible circumstances and at the worst possible time as they are advocating now.”
I don’t agree with that. The same crew that got us into this mess will find a way to blame those who were powerless to stop it, for our “defeat”. Never mind that those same Republicans blew it by the end of 2003.
12:25 pm
I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people. Plus the press won’t let Republicans get away with any such nonsense.
12:38 pm
I sort of agree with the sentiment but you’re dreaming if you think it will play with the voters.
“No blood for oil” resonates very deeply with many people.
12:50 pm
mARKj…
Oh, and please explain to the rest of the class how Iraq is a “debacle.†Compared to what? Saddam with nukes? Iraq morphed into “Al Qaedastan?â€
what would you prefer to call a situation of your own making which leaves you with no good options?
saddam did not, and was a long way from having, nukes. today iraq is closer than ever to being al quedastan due solely to the actions of dick.
12:52 pm
@MarkJ:
“Oh, and please explain to the rest of the class how Iraq is a “debacle.†Compared to what? Saddam with nukes? Iraq morphed into “Al Qaedastan?†Well?”
since neither of those two things existed, how about comparing it to reality?
1:12 pm
I predict that Republican candidates will seize on this shift and start asking questions like: Why shouldn’t we maintain our standard of living?
I think this may not be the best strategy for Republicans to pursue. The war really is about oil?I don’t think so.
Even though the rationale has changed a number of times already, this may be the truly worst option. It would cause a tsunami, all right. . . against Republicans.
1:24 pm
pug…
anyone familiar with the writings of the neo-cons from the 90’s knows that protecting the flow of oil was one of the three prime rationales for regime change. the other two being to protect israel, and our own people in the region.
1:51 pm
It’s too bad the Dems can’t find any Republicans to show some backbone and end this disastrous war. What’s really regrettable is how the Republicans are completely unable to enact the will of the American people, who are firmly behind withdrawal. (In other words, withdrawal from Iraq is not a Democratic thing; it’s an American thing.)
As for “handing Iraq over to the forces of death and destruction,” here’s a newsflash for you, buddy, that actually happened in March 2003. However, we need a courageous set of politicians (rare, I admit) to call a spade a spade and cut our losses. This is the opinion of any serious observer of recent world events. The fact that Republican politicians at you 25%-ers are not on board with this idea is a precursor to the Republicans declining as a serious political party. Which, given the past 6 years, can only be seen as a good thing.
2:08 pm
and while we are at it let’s raise the debt ceiling again…for the fifth time since this administration took over.
2:24 pm
So if you feel there is no “victory” to be had, how exactly are democrats surrendering?
It’s been said time and time again and it’s still true. If you rely on moderate republicans to do the right thing you’re gonna be screwed.
Even Rick, who by all accounts has realized the folly of this war to some extent, still believes it’s more useful as a tool of politics than it is horrible as a means of death, destruction, and siphoning of the Treasury.
This post proves it.
2:53 pm
[...] I’ll close this post with a bit of great analysis from Right Wing Nut House that further illustrates what I mean by the absolute defeatism of the Democratic party and the left: The calculus for getting the 60 votes needed to end the GOP filibuster on Iraq legislation apparently became too difficult for Reid to achieve, and a compromise could have forced anti-war Democrats to vote on softer goals for troop withdrawal, something staunchly opposed by the party’s base.So Reid has forged ahead with an aggressive list of Iraq proposals, including a key amendment that would place hard timetables on troop withdrawal, shifting the mission in Iraq for U.S. forces from combat to supporting the Iraqi security forces, and completing the deployment. [...]
3:23 pm
#28…
wow…i think you are spinning a bit too fast.
the way i read it the republicans were unwilling to go along with any compromise, and only wanted to give the white house a continued blank check. so reid reverted to his hard-line stance. no matter…there are no leaders in our nations capitol. the closest to that is webb, and the republicans refused to support the troops by backing his bill that would give equal time at home to that deployed. repugnant. given that the current escalation has to begin to end in april, and political reconciliation is very unlikely by that time, it is clear that we need to institute a draft to insure adequate troops to continue the escalation which isn’t working.
3:24 pm
“Why not buy some time with a dependable oil supply provided by (yet another) client state in the Middle East while we develop alternative energy sources?”
Indeed.
Why not kill hundreds of thousands of people to ensure our fuel supply?
3:57 pm
Dear Home Page.
I have a very good idea. Since you and your followers on the Right Wing have 4 + years calling people that disagee with your policiy in Iraq “cowards”, or “defeatist”, why don’t you make an open invitation for the “coward” Democrats to see you and your “Rambo in times of hunger” friends, and call us cowards to our face?
It is impressive the “bravery” that you and your friends display from your key- boards. What a rush to feel so brave because you “support” some soldier to stay for his third tour of duty
Man, that really takes a lot of bravery indeed
What an incredible fighter you most be when you want some one else to stay and fight for years until YOU win sitting in your couch
!!
What an admirable brave man you are
!
Having said those words of “admiration” for the incredible display of bravery that you and your fellow Apocalypse now cartoon characters friends display, let me give you my definition of cowardice.
A coward is one that hides in the shadows to insult people. A coward is one that attacks in anonimity from the web. It would be nice Mr. “Brave” man, if you and your friends along with your insults, would give us your names, addresses and phone #’s to show that you are indeed brave enough to walk your talk if need be. But of course you will not.
As for the “white flags” that according to you the Democrats are flying with “no takers”——In 2008 you’ll see the “takers” pal. your Republican partisan friends think is “brave” to send some one else to die, so that you can some how prove to yourselves that you are not a bunch of imbeciles for trying to use our Armed Forces as a permanent Baby-Sitter for a bunch of corrupt Iraqi politicians. Your Republican frinds think that Americans can just look the other way at the incredible amount of mistakes you “brave” ones have made, and request no accountability, and buy your empty, and infantile bravado.
Pal, the guys with the “white flags” are the majority of the American people, not just the Democrats. We all want to win in Iraq (so much for your white flag)..... We just don’t want to do it with your DEMONSTRABLY stupid and delusional crowd in charge of the policy.
So come 2008, we end what we started in 2006. You want the Iraq war to continue the way it has been going? , we will give you your wish, get up your couch, get a rifle, and go fight it yourself. Hell, I’ll buy you the rifle myself pal.
As for victory—The real road to Victory, will come when your crowd is out. As simple as that.
4:01 pm
Gil:
Okay, let me get this straight.
No insulting from behind a keyboard…
BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
4:16 pm
Can we at least agree that if the war were indeed unwinnable, then the prudent thing would be to leave ASAP?
I suppose not, as the blowhards on the right wouldn’t want to admit that their opponents simply have a different opinion about the feasibility of the effort, not a desire to “surrender” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean in the context of this conflict).
Rick, your partisanship and inability to engage on the issues is childish and petulant. No surprise from a guy that oodles respect for a very childish and petulant president.
4:22 pm
I have little respect for Bush and less respect for those who refuse to see that there is more than one way to leave Iraq.
The Democrats way is outright surrender. There are alternatives that may take 18-24 months longer that would leave behind a vastly improved situation – and that’s even if the surge isn’t going to do everything it’s supposed to.
In two years, there will be 15-20 competently trained Iraqi brigades that would be able to take over almost all the security functions we are perfoming now.
We will be out of Iraq. We are leaving without “victory” but short of “unmitigated disaster.” If that’s too complicated for you to understand, tough.
4:25 pm
#33
well let’s be real…anything is winnable…it’s a matter of how much blood and treasure you are willing to waste and to what end? i have yet to have anyone show me the cost benefit analysis that justifies dick’s little middle-eastern adventure. so much for responsible stewards of the publics money.
4:26 pm
rick,
“...In two years, there will be 15-20 competently trained Iraqi brigades that would be able to take over almost all the security functions we are perfoming now…”
that’s what was being said two years ago. c’mon.
4:28 pm
Wrong. In November 2005, the expectation was there would be 10 brigades ready to carry out operations on their own by the end of 2007. They are going to miss that goal but not by much.
Get your facts right.
4:32 pm
Rick.
Got your blood going??
You know I see you agree with “the people” comments… Good for you.
You know in my opinion Rick, if you would let go with the unecessary insults you’ll be one of the best on your side.
Just the other day I was in a blog where “wordsmith” (the blogs owner) would not even agree that the next Administration will inherit the war in Iraq from Bush, because “Bush did not start the war”. His take was the war on terror was not started by Bush, Iraq is part of the war on terror, therefore Bush did not start the war in Iraq.
With mental gymnastics, otherwise refered to as absolute intellectual dishonesty like that running rampant in your Party, you guys are going to need devine help to stay in power.
By the way, for what is worth, I do agree with your view that the two parties are playing politics with a bunch of kid’s lives on the line. Unfortunate, but can’t be helped in modern American Politics where the extremist on the two sides are the so called “base” of their respective parties.
I am in construction, and take it from me—- With a base (foundation) like the one the Demmocrats and republicans have, is just a matter of time before the house collapses on top of our heads.
4:44 pm
The only point I try to make – and I find it amusing that the commenter above actually believes I have anything but contempt for Bush at this point – is that the Democrats plan is wrong, wrong, wrong. The surge, for whatever its worth, has brough marginal improvements.
Surely people must see that leaving Iraq a bloody disaster would be, in its purest and simplest formulation, a huge blow to our national interests and with untold consequences for the Middle east.
Shouldn’t we do everything we can to avoid it? All I get from Democrats is “nothing has changed” or “that’s what you said two years ago.” That is the biggest bullshit I’ve ever heard. It’s talking points, not a policy option. Come up with a way to leave Iraq with the least damage to our interests and I’ll support it.
Right now, like it or not (and I don’t like it much), we are trapped and there is little we can do except keep going, making incremental improvements in security while pushing all sides to a political solution.
Putting a hard timeline on our departure is nothing short of surrender. Period. And pretending otherwise won’t make it so. The pressure not to redeploy but to withdraw will be intense once the bloodbath starts – probably irresistable. Unless we can at least effect a handover to a barely competent security force, there will be no chance – zero – for Iraq to avoid catastrophe. We owe our own dead the tens of thousands dead Iraqis at least that much.
5:03 pm
Damn, talk about tilting at windmills!
In the same way, we’re going to be greeted as liberators with flowers in the streets. Iraq will pay for the invasion and occupation out of oil money. Those WMDs will certainly be found! The invasion certainly will not throw the region into chaos, cause an overwhelming humanitarian/refugee crisis, and benefit Iran. And those insurgents? A bunch of dead-enders in their last throes!
Rick, I don’t know whether you really believe this stuff (in which case you’re sadly deluded) or whether you know it’s a load of crap but find it useful to spin because it temporarily makes your viewpoint appear to be valid (which would be far worse than delusion). C’mon, full disclosure time: which is it?
5:09 pm
Shouldn’t we do everything we can to avoid it?
We did.
In 2002 and 2003, an unprecedented number of people protested the war before even a shot was fired. We all foresaw the situation in which we are now, and did everything we could to prevent it. We were marginalized and ignored, but in the long run our predictions turned out to be on the money.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to turn back the clock. All we can do is learn from our mistakes.
So, you guys failed, tragically, abysmally, failed. I’d say that means you’ve lost your turn at dictating the direction of the country, and must wait for the adults to clean up your mess. And what a mess it is!! And like a 2-year-old who spilled his milk all over the floor, you’ll sit there and cry while mom and dad get out the mop and do what needs to be done.
5:15 pm
I agree. Unfortunately, there will not be even a barely competent security force in Iraq in the foreseeable future. Therefore, per your claim, the chance of Iraq avoiding catastrophe is zero.
I remember when conservatives prided themselves on their ability to take a realistic look at the unvarnished truth. Those were the days!
I agree we owe all the dead quite a lot. Unfortunately, we can’t achieve the impossible. Failing that, what we owe the dead is what is owed to any victims: justice. In this case, that means the main players from the Bush Cabal need to answer for what they’ve done. Indict. Impeach. Imprison. Execute. That’s all we can do at this point. I so wish it weren’t so.
5:15 pm
#41
Okay fine…
So what do we DO? All you can do is make childish references to “grown ups” and spilled milk.
If you are talking about withdrawing 160,000 troops in 6 months you are an idiot. That is not a policy option. It is surrender.
I challenged my critics to come up with a better option for withdrawal than what we are doing now. The only thing I see is get out now as quickly as possible. Is that it? Is that the best you’ve got?
And you call me a child?
5:20 pm
You think we should stay and try to improve things at the margin. You say that the Iraqis in two years the Iraqis will have 15 trained brigades. Assuming that theirs are the same size as ours, and ours with much greater firepower cannot control things, why is that an improvement?
How would you describe a situation when it would be OK to leave?
Are you willing to raise taxes to pay for the actual costs incurred with your plan? Including the major increase in the number of soldiers it will take?
How many dead people will it take to get where you want to be? Is that number larger or smaller than it would be without the US staying?
5:20 pm
#42
All you can do is say nothing is possible. Jesus what an asset you would have been at Normandy.
And I see no point in engaging someone who continues to spout talking points rather than policy options.
5:29 pm
20 to 30 competently trained Iraqi brigades? That must mean they got somebody more competent
than Petraeus to do the training. Betray-us was an abject failure at getting Iraqis up to speed. Heckuva job.
5:31 pm
#44
All good questions.
I think ultimately, the improvement in security will come from political progress – we all know that. But the point about an Iraqi army is that we give them a fighting chance to defend the government. Right now, if we left, they would be virtually defenseless.
It would be “ok to leave” once the Iraqis are responsible for their own security.
btw- I think it more than likely that two years from now, we will have less than 50,000 men in Iraq anyway. We are not going to go from 130,000 to zero.
I’ve been advocating raising taxes to pay for the war since 2005.
As far as numbers of dead, who knows? As few as possible obviously.
5:31 pm
Rick.
You apparently believe that more training of the Iraqi Army is what’s needed.
Tell me, what in the previous experience of Iraqi troop Training gives you the absolute confidence you reflect in your comment ” In two years there will be 15-20 Iraqi Brigades that will be able to take over” ???
Please take into account that any “Iraqi Brigades” will have to take over not only our region of security (The SUnni Center + Baghdad) , but the Shiite South too. And please remember that if by then (like now) there’s no political reconsiliation forthcoming, then those iraqi Brigades will be put between a rock and a hard place by the very tribes and regions these soldiers came from.
Or do you picture a Sunni soldier in one of these brigades accepting a Shiite soldier killing a bunch of Sunni in his region ?
My point is simple. For some obscure reason, some one decided (probably a laszy politician) that security most come first, and political compromise will automatically follow. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact that’s a transparent ploy by politicians (America and Iraqi) to get themselves off the hook and avoid making the ugly, hard decissions that they will have to make and risk their political lives, and in some cases their very lives in the process. Let the Army carry the water, and bring it to our table to drink—- That’s the politician position. The more the Army gives them security with their blood, the less pressure they feel to compromise. Because security does not equal compromise right Rick?
The very success in al Anbar is proof of what I just said. For years al Anbar was a troubled Region of Iraq because we were hell bent in imposing security first. It did not work. And now is working because we came to a political agreement between the Sunni Regional Leaders, America, and to some extent the al-malaki “Government” or at least what’s left of it.
In al Anbar we see all the elements we need to win at work. First real LEVERAGE on our part, created by the al-Quaida treat to the stability of the power base of the Sunni Regional Leaders. As a result of the al Quaida treat, we got the leverage to negociate from a position of strenght (our money and logistical support for your cooperation and union to fight al-Quaida with us). Second. The implementation of the political agreement into the field, with all the forces in the region (not just U.S. forces) taking the fight to al-Quaida. Third. The obvios assurance that at last we can live and be sure that what we live behind will not collapse as it has happen before.
There’s many and obvios draw backs and qualifiers to go with POLITICAL RECONSILIATION FIRST, AND SECURITY SECOND policy. For example in the above mentioned al Anbar success. The Sunni can decide after they defeat al-Quaida with our help, that they will go back to be our enemies, or the enemies of al-Malaki’s Government.
But is another way to look at a problem. Is another way that at least for now has proven to have worked…. Unlike the train the troops till the cows come home policy—- No offense Rick, but that strategy has lost a lot of credibility with the american people, and for good reason. I am not saying your idea will not work, I am saying that if you are honest with yourself, your idea might be a bit to late in the “game” to be done. Besides is the same put the troops first, and force a compromise at the point of a gun kind of policy that has 4 1/2 years running with only the word “success” to show for.
IT WILL NOT WORK LIKE THAT.
5:32 pm
#46
Who said “20 or 30” brigades? The number was 15-20 and there are already 7-8.
Can I suggest that next time you, like, you know, READ THE FRICKING POST BEFORE COMMENTING!
5:47 pm
I think Obama’s plan to withdraw all combat brigades by 2009 is a good direction to pursue. Granted, it’s still thin on details, as all such proposals are during a campaign. However, given that Obama correctly understands that our 160k troops are doing nothing to promote the long-term peace, and that therefore it makes no sense to keep them in the country. Keep in mind that the Iraqi people (remember them, those people we liberated?) overwhelmingly want us out. Just like we Americans would want a foreign occupier out as well. Either Iraq is a sovereign country or it’s not.
Unfortunately, that’s the best there is. Because your republican heroes have painted us into a corner by the utterly tragic Iraq debacle, no pretty options exist any longer. I’m so sorry if this offends your tender sensibilities. In the future, I strongly suggest you keep out of foreign policy discussions. You don’t have the stomach or the mentality for it.
5:51 pm
Rick, I truly admire your fortitude as you get pwned on your own blog. Many less oblivious/courageous (I don’t pretend to know which) bloggers would just delete the comments that pwned them.
While you continue to mispredict the future, 60-90 American lives a month are lost. Your pipedreams on display, while hopeful and positive, are no substitute for a realistic appraisal of the situation, right now…not how you imagine it to be in two years.
5:52 pm
Except for this small distinction: Normandy was not impossible. It required commitment of resources, and an excellent strategy, but once those were in place, it was a very sound (and successful) approach.
Iraq is an entirely different kettle of fish, something I see you don’t understand, due to your misuse of the Normandy comparison. Iraq is an occupation/insurgency situation. Unlike the Germans in Normandy, the Iraqis simply need to wait for us to leave (which will happen eventually) and they win.
Ah, I remember that line! Back in 8th grade, if another kid wouldn’t give me my way on the playground, I’d simply say I wouldn’t talk to them because they were “thtoopid”. Ah, memories. I hope you understand now why I consider you a child.
5:58 pm
We do? I must have missed a memo. Last I’d heard, a successful political process was meant to come from an improvement in security, not the other way around. Anyhow, it didn’t happen, did it? I can see how moving the goalposts is an irresistible temptation at this point, but it doesn’t do much for your credibility. Just sayin’.
And how would that be determined? I know! How about if we just ask the Iraqis if they want us to leave, and if they say yes, then we’re outta there?
Oh…wait…
Wait, I know how this song goes. It starts with that line about “greeted as liberators,” goes through a stanza about finding WMDs, mentions something about Iraq paying for the war with oil revenue, and includes a chorus where the insurgents are in their last throes.
In a nutshell, what a republican predicts will happen in Iraq in the future is about the most worthless piece of information available.
Spoken as someone who is certain that none of the dead will be anyone he cares about. Ah, compassionate conservatism, you gotta love it.
6:39 pm
Paul.
I do agree with most of what you say. Buy you sound angry, and altough God knows you have every right to be angry after the kind of criminal “Leadership” we have had on Iraq—It’s time for focusing on the task of getting our fellow Americans out of Iraq with the honor they deserve.
Soon Bush will be just a a bad memory in the history of our country. And I have to tell you, a probable Democratic President will have his/her hands full in Iraq, not to mention the Republicans demanding results (finally) , not talk of progress.
If the next President is wise, he/she will forget the “base” demands, and do the right thing for the American people, but most importantly for the American soldiers. And in my humble opinion, doing the right thing starts from taking responsability and saying “I, the President as your Leader do take upon the task to resolve the problem that was allways a political problem, and therefore for politicians to resolve” “I will not allow the loss of the life of one more American soldier if all politicians American and Iraqi are not fully 110% commited to compromise” And in order for this words not to be just another empty promise, and in order for politicians to for once sit down and do what’s right for their people” I plage that our Army will sit down on the side lines until a compromise is reached” We Americans need to understand the limit of our power, and what can, and can’t be done with our Army”.
If our new leader combines these words with deeds, and with a 100 % political commitment so horrible lacking from this administration, there might be a chance yet to salvage some sence of accomplishment from the sad mess Bush made of Iraq.
There’s work to be done, and the work will not be done by extremist any more.
7:28 pm
We should be starting a real dialog about ways to clean up Bush’s mess. Unfortunately, politics won’t let this happen. It’s either “stay the course” or “withdraw now”. The Democrats are going to have to deal with this in 2008, so they might as well start now.
What are some of the options? The most obvious is partitioning, although I don’t know if that would really work. But if politics around this issue could be diminished, I bet the real experts who understand the region could come up with some interesting ideas.
Unfortunately,both sides are very bitter about the burnt earth politics surrounding this issue. I’m still so pissed off for being called names when I predicted to everybody I could talk to what would and has happened if we invaded Iraq without real planning and true support from the world, that it’s hard for me to be rational about this.
It’s an ugly situation.
7:28 pm
Agreed on all counts. Yes, I am angry, just as anyone would be when a completely preventable, foreseeable disaster occurs. What makes me angry is that the very culprits of this disaster continue to preen on their abysmal failure as if it were success, and cast their opponents as childish and rash (a claim that requires a complete inability to detect irony).
If the 25%ers in this country can let go of this self-defeating strategy, we can get down to the serious business of cutting our losses and doing what’s right by our military, which has been horribly abused. Not to mention the American and Iraqi people at large.
Yes! And I agree with the direction of your stated solution. It makes me sick that we’re left to squabble over such a collection of bad outcomes, but as a result of 6+ years of republican rule, that’s where we are. Let’s hope our country doesn’t feel the need to repeat this disastrous chapter in our history.
That depends on how you look at it. A solution where the US pulls out of Iraq without accomplishing any of the objectives sought by the war’s neoconservative architects (permanent military bases for staging further Middle East conquest, etc) might be considered very extreme by some people. This is not for the timid and will certainly require a fight, to peel the neocon fingers off their coveted prize for which our military has sacrificed so much on their behalf.
However, I agree that extreme, polarizing views need to give way to facts on the ground. For that very reason, the republicans (who have never had much time for the facts when it comes to Iraq) need to be completely marginalized in formulating a new policy.
7:33 pm
Yes, partition is an option with growing popularity. However, that option wouldn’t necessarily be all puppydogs and roses either. Look at the partition of India, entailing the world’s largest human migration in history and untold nasty bloodshed. That conflict still rages. They’re fighting over beautiful places like Kashmir, which has historically been coveted by India’s rulers. However, the Iraqis would be fighting over oil, which could get a lot nastier.
I’m thinking something short of partition, but a solution where the regions of Iraq have substantial independence, such as the Kurds have had for some years. Ethnic separation between Shia, Sunni and Kurd, and then a centrally-administered government that divides up the oil revenue.
Of course, such a solution would require a lot of agreement in a place where such agreement is pretty hard to come by.
7:44 pm
Pete:
The partition idea may be the quick and dirty solution. It would help Iran the most I guess but I would support it if the humanitarian effects could be minimized.
For Paul and others who have never visited here or who are not that familiar with this site, I have gone over many, many options discussing and debating the pros and cons over the last two years – ever since it became obvious that we had to leave Iraq. The argument I am hearing from some is that because the Iraq War has been one clusterfu**k after another, the current strategy is bound to fail also.
Everyone knows that the surge is taking place in something of a vacuum because of the lack of political progress made by the sectarian gang that runs Iraq at present. But the difference over just the last 90 days (and anyone who judges the success or failure of a military strategy after only 3 months is a peawit) is significant enough that at the very least we should give Petraeus and the Iraqi government a chance to continue making progress.
For the record, I have no illusions about making Iraq anything except a barely functioning state with a chance at survival. It’s not much but I still say it is better than catastrophe – which still might happen but the chance of which would have been reduced.
This is what we are reduced to; staving off total disaster. Anything is better than that including staying in Iraq for another 18-24 if necessary to create the conditions I described above.
This has nothing to do with Bush, with party or ideology. It has everything to do with salvaging something from the huge mistakes and blunders committed over the last 4 years.
8:13 pm
Excellent. Glad to see at least one republican has turned to this page.
Keep in mind, there is no new strategy. That’s why the current strategy is bound to fail, because it’s more of the same of what has happened all along. Oh, it has some new buzzwords (“the surge”, etc), but you’re forgetting that BushCo has a never-ending supply of new buzzwords (“stay the course”, “stand up/stand down”, etc) to describe the same ‘ol same ‘ol, which has never been different from what came before.
Of course, Bush does in fact have a new strategy, one that Patraeus didn’t go into. It’s to stave off an open admission of failure long enough that he can get out of office and the whole thing can be blamed on a democrat. That is Bush’s singular focus regarding the war.
The surge was announced in January and began shortly thereafter. That’s more than 90 days on my calendar.
However, regardless of how long it’s been, if there had been progress, it might be prudent to wait and see where that progress might go. Trouble is, there has not been progress. Patraeus’ claims were nothing more than a bad sales job.
For example, Patraeus was asked why his outlook was so much rosier than the outlook of the GAO and Jones reports. His claim was that those reports did not include August’s numbers.
What were August’s numbers? Well, the Pentagon just came out with a report that noted that “the security environment” took “a notable turn for the worse in August.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Signed-Version-070912.pdf
Can you understand how Patraeus can be called a traitor? The American public are looking to him to provide an unvarnished view of what’s going on in Iraq, and all we get is Bush spin. That is true betrayal.
Granted, it’s reasonable to expect that a military surge would have some positive effects on the level of violence, if only short-term. And if that were the goal of the surge, we might say we’re getting somewhere. But that’s not the goal of the surge. The surge’s goal was to create an environment where political progress could take place. According to Patraeus and Crocker, as well as everyone else, that has not happened, and shows no signs of happening in the foreseeable future. Therefore, by its own standards as set by Bush, the surge is doomed to failure. The sooner we all accept this and do what needs to be done given this reality, the better.
I realize that US prestige and credibility will take a major hit for this. However, Rick, you have to understand that our prestige and credibility are in the toilet as a result of the Iraq disaster. Admitting our mistake and working to rectify the situation will actually enhance our credibility. Holding the Bush Administration accountable will enhance our prestige, and signal to our erstwhile allies that we have returned to sanity and the rule of law, and can now return to the dinner table.
On the other hand, Republican prestige and credibility will be doomed. That is what fuels this argument.
8:20 pm
I’ve looked over some of your past posts on Iraq, and I would have to say you are one of the people who seemed to be very sure of your opinions even when they turned out wrong many times and one of the name callers who has made true debate on this issue so difficult.
So in your small way, you helped make the mess we are in now.
9:16 pm
Paul & Rick.
There’s many problems in life with no good solutions—Just bad solutions, and worst solutions. I just said something that a long time ago should have been obvious to all those nuts on the extreme Left, and Right that some how continue to pretend that there most be a solution to the mess Iraq if we just stay a little longer in the case of the Right, or no solution at all, and we most simply pack and go in the case of the extreme left.
To these people I say this. Republican Conservatives (the Right) . You are not looking for a solution, you are looking for an excuse not to be held accountable for your mistakes by trading the blood of our soldiers, for the time you will need not to be looked at as having supported a failure of a President. How much time? As long as it takes to pin the mess on some one else. In fact you are still doing it.
If you were true to your patriotic standards, then long ago you would have realised that the rethoric did not match the mission. That we needed a real all out effort, a National Draft, a ten fold increment of troops, an increase of taxes, a firm diplomatic D-Day to recruit Arab Nations behind us…. But you Repubnlicans were and still are just play acting. Make believe cartoon “patriots” that would have made our forefathers cringe in disgust.
As for the Democratic Extreme Left. The mess in Iraq will spread if we pack and go. That’s about the only thing Bush has said where he makes sence. Never mind that he is only repeating the very same warning that desperate people tried to make him understand before he started the war. We can’t simply pack and go because we would be living behind much more than a failed state. We will be living behind a potential, and very real Regional war that would in no time engulf us all right back in. Only this time with a problem larger than we could possibly handle. So Left extremist, your’s is not a solution—It is madness. It is compounding exponentially the mistakes of the Present Administration and all these misguided patriots that call themselves the Right.
In the end I believe the solution will have to be a loose Federal call- it- what- you- will kind of “Government. There’s some Nations like Spain for example, that have autonomous regions like the Basques in the North East, or Cataluña (Catalan) in the South East. These regions came about after a long and bloody civil war, and in the case of the Basque people is still going on (ETA Separatist)..... But Spain is a prosperous country today, that lives in peace, is united, and has one of the highest standards of living in the planet.
The Basque people have their own language, and culture, and so have the Catalans. If you go to these regions you will find yourself looking at people that not only speaks Spanish as a second language, but you’ll see Spaniards forced to understand Catalan for example because most road signs are in Catalan. But Catalans and Basques do consider themselves 100% Spaniards.
This peaceful coexistence comes with maturity, and maturity comes with time. Our Army can be used to patrol endlessly, and die endlessly, and be used as an al-quaida recruiting tool endlessly—- Or it can be used to support this kind of change in a more father-to-son role, rather than the baby sitting role it has now.
So yes, we need to be in Iraq for the duration and support the Iraqi people, but we need to stop our Army from beeing misused as it has so shamelessly been misused. And yes we need to drastically change not only our policies in Iraq, but the way we see the world.
There is no more ignorant people about the world that we the American people, even tough we are the only world’s superpower. That needs to change or we will make the same mistake again with some future “Bush the incurious”—- We are going to be paying for his “incuriosity” for a long, long time. Thank you very much Republicans.
We’ll remember it in 2008. Next time pick some one that knows more than to light a good BBQ fire—The Middle East was a very bad place to play with matches guys.
AND WE TOLD YOU SO.
11:31 pm
Gil,
Neatly said. Play-acting is right. When told more troops would be needed by a guy that knew better, Bush fired him. When told it would cost more than $20 billion, Bush fired him. When told many times and in many ways they were cocking things up, they screamed “unpatriotic”. The only thing they never did was fight this war like a war. They did exactly what they accused Democrats of doing in Vietnam. They let politics affect the commitment. Face it, if you meant to subjugate and hold a country of this size, you raise an army to do it. Not play soldier without enough of our troops. It’s more than a disgrace, its treason.
These guys are fools. Leave it to a woman to sort things out: an orderly training mission followed by withdrawal.
That’s what will happen in 2009. And this Administration, for all of American history, will be branded for the incompetent, trigger-happy cowboy chicken-hawks they all were. Just pathetic.