Iraq: A New Mission

I think that if the liberation-from-Saddam part of invading Iraq had been emphasized more liberals would have signed on, and while I wouldn't say they oppose the war because Bush beat Gore, I do think it's fair to suppose that distrust over how the war was sold can't help but influence how liberals perceive Iraq today.

So, what would a stable government look like? I guess our best bet is to hope Maliki can (and will) crack down on the Shiite militias and the Sunnis will play ball. Not an easy road ahead, to be sure, as the mass kidnapping recently showed (thankfully most of the hostages have apparently been released).

(We had an interesting discussion of al-Sadr here a while ago )

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

and this definitely saves me some time :) Thanks for crossposting your thoughts! I am very close to your view on this issue.

I'll write more on this topic a bit later.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

It isn't strictly Iraq, so please humor me, I'm not trying to threadjack.  But he does talk much about security and the threats we face.

So, here's Tom's piece titled What's That Thumping? .

Here's some hightlights I have quibbles with from Tom.  I'm not going to address the comments cause they are already kind of long.

1) "Too many Republicans failed to continue an aggressive fight for the principles which bring us together as Republicans and as conservatives. As the great political theorist Russell Kirk points out, we conservatives believe in a society built on three first principles: Order, Justice and Freedom. These principles are the three legs of the stool upon which our society rests. With anyone of these legs removed the stool, and our society, topples." - My question is, what?  Where do you get offf thinking it's only conservatives who want Order, Justice & Freedom?  You mean Order & Justice like not allowing opposition parites a ny seat at all in House Senate Committees to reconcile bills?  You mean Freedom like the userping of our Bill of Rights by spying on us without warrants or throwing citizens & noncitizens alike in jail without any charges, any possibility of confronting their accusers because you threw out Haebeus Corpus?

2)  "The primary responsibility of government is to ensure the protection of its citizens and as conservatives we must lead the effort to strengthen our nation’s military and homeland defense capabilities to protect our citizens from attack. This means a thorough modernization of America’s military and the deployment of strategic defenses against missile attack." - I support continued research into antiballistic missle defense.  It's something that will come.  I don't support funding a prgram building that defense now because our tests have shown the current mock up can only track & hit a missle that's broadcasting a tracking device.  Uhhh, that's a waste of billions & billions of dollars on a program that that money should be going to continued research until the thing can hit a missle without beacons.

3)  "The problem with our government isn’t simply that it has gotten too big or that it spends too much – but that it is involved in aspects of our lives and our economy in which it has no business. Further, our government has almost become a self-sustaining organism which continues to grow and propagate programs without accountability and without results for the people it is supposed to serve." - Uhhh, like you didn't have anything to do with that one, eh Tom?

4)  "conservatives are united in their agreement that we must bring into check the powers of an increasingly imperial judiciary which seeks to manufacture, rather than interpret the law. The Judicial Branch must be returned to coequal status with the Legislative and the Executive, lest we undermine the very principles of Order, Justice and Freedom upon which we believe our society to be built." - Oh yea...cough, cough...Terri Schavio.  I don't need to say anything more.

It goes on.  You should read it.  I'm not going on any further here cause this post is already longer than I like.

First off, let me congratulate RS for finally breaking the lockstep position of the administation and allowing a forum about the Iraq War on the front page.

Next, to add to what Brendan said about liberal oppossition, we do not know if the administration lied to lead us to war as of yet.  I believe you are sincere in your convictions over the belief that the administration and our allies thought there were WMDs, but there are a lot of facts to contradict your belief.  Until Phase II of the Iraqi Intelligence Report is completed, our debate about this issue is futile.  Let's just say the issue is not resolved and there is plenty of evidence the intelligence was hyped.

I have nothing substantial to say about your commentary on democracy.  I hope the Iraqis come to the conclusion that this governmental style leads to stability and progress, but it can't be thrust upon a people.  It is a process, and the best democracies evolve from a process of historical development, not military intrusion.

The most significant problem I see with the your analysis of the war is that you are still in the mind-frame that the insurgency can be crushed somehow.  If you read through some of the comments on this site recently, a rift exists between conservatives who believe we can annihilate the insurgency through blunt force and a liberal position pertaining to winning the support of the Iraqi populace to squelch the base of the insurgency.  The latter is more of a psychological warfare technique of winning the hearts and minds of the people.  The populace currently despises the US and prefers our withdrawal .  With this as the underlying feeling in Iraq, we can never defeat a guerilla war.  This is no time for a 'Sherman', because it is not a conventional war.  There is no government to submit to our will and force to surrender, just as there are no armies to defeat.  Your analogy is false. 

Similarly, even if we kill Sadr (another cornerstone passed which will bring peace to the region?--Heard that one before), the disdain for the US will still exist, and his militia will split into more factions causing more problems.  It is easy to destroy an organized group, a behemoth animal can always be brought down, but small factions like ants or snow bury you in a deluge, and you can't kill just a few to make the rest stop.  There is no organization to topple.  It is a civil war, and we are caught in the middle.

Furthermore, continued and escalated aggression (even if we had the troops) will lead to more terrorists as the recent NIE reported .  You chop one head off and another emerges in its place.

This leaves us with three options as I see it:

1)  We can commit a regional genocide and wipe out all insurgents and any civilians in our way.

2) We can withdraw and help from the sidelines in various ways (money, tactical strikes, etc) waiting for a winner to emerge to deal with.

3) Split the country up into its various ethnic regions a la Eastern Europe.

All of these have there problems, but I am most in favor of two and three.  I think this is where the new debate must begin.

reach out to the Muslim world and get help from them.  That goes in there somewhere.

is annoying to say the least. It's nice to see him talking the talk now when he had 6 year to actually do something to further the conservative movement. He destroyed what Gingrich started.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

I guess I should've included that with winning over the Iraqi populace.  The regional and religious support is also necessary, and would create additional pressure to limit the actions of the insurgency.

I've read recently in either the London or New York Review of Books that using Islam as a tool to help us may be the only shot we have left.  It may be necessary to allow an Imam to take control of the country if only for stability's sake. 

I will try to find the article, but I just realized I left a book I need for class today at home, so I must leave for a bit.

and one that sorely needs some attention. Thank you for reaching out!!

I concur that a "democratic" Iraq is not the be all and end all solution it was once touted to be. For now the goal should be stability.

Interesting that you take note that the seeming unstated goal of the war from the outset was to witness a miraculous domino effect of establishing a civil society in Iraq based on American style democracy, neglecting to notice the "non European" aspect of the Middle East.

As one who forsaw the fallacy of this War from the moment the President started repeating WMD, like a chatty Kathy doll, I am relieved that you or anyone else that supported this failed attempt  has come to an awakening.

The oddity that it is the so called liberals who embraced the reality of the consequences of this war should force to you at least pause for a moment and acknowledge that perhaps this motly group of liberals is not as unrealistic or lacking in pragmatism as your constant stereotyping insists.

Could you please make a note of that.

The oddity that the best course for achieving stability is appealing to the secular aspect of Islamic culture, when in fact the US occupation of Iraq has served to inflame the religous fundamentalists who resent and fear a Christian take over, a long simmering and historical feud.

The oddity that liberals have more respect, recognize and show more tolerance for many religions, different cultures, including the gay culture. That liberals were not interested in remaking Baghdad in America's image because liberals really are pro-life and recognize that violence should never be the first answer, but truly a last resort.

All that said, for the purpose of stability in Iraq I believe the US should diminish its glaring presence in the country somehow, without betraying the people for whom it promised a rose garden, by pulling back to an offshore balance position, leaving enough troops to guard the oil fields, and the airport.  To achieve this goal, the US will be forced to work with Iraq's neighbors.

I feel a deep sense of relief that we are having this discussion, and a profound sense of sadness for the people of Iraq who seem to have lost their country and much more their families and friends, their jobs. I hope the US can guide them to stability. All we know for sure is that this is a huge challenge and one that should be approached wisely, with eyes wide open.

It is the economy, stupid.

I have no pity for that man.

It is the economy, stupid.

That Zinni and Batiste are calling for one last stand.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide

I don't see how a solution for Iraq can be brought forth without listening to all options. How many more soldiers is it worth losing?

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

Indeed, General Batiste has recently written that pending the training of an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops.” General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops.

I can't imagine a coalition of an Arab military helping the US in Iraq. Especially when al-Queda will kill anyone that is seen as helping the Americans or their cause. I can't foresee sending in more US troops without a draft.

The options for Iraq seem to be, really bad and absolutely horrible.

It is the economy, stupid.

I have a long enough memory to recall that the best intelligence of the United States, Britain, France, and Russia all indicated that Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In the face of such evidence, only the most foolhardy of individuals (I'm looking at you, netroots) would have not undertaken some manner of military action against Saddam.

Do you remember the weapons inspectors on the ground not finding any WMD before the invasion?  Lets see, behind the scenes armchair intelligence "experts" (the same guys who didn't know the berlin wall was coming down until it did) or actual on site inspections? 

I'd say the ones looking foolish are not the ones who got it right, neh Leon?

Accordingly, I believe that the United States should, if necessary, abandon the goal of establishing a democratic state in Iraq, and should instead focus on leaving behind a friendly state in Iraq, in whatever form that Government might take. Even so, the question of what shall be left behind in Iraq is not a ripe one at the present time, for the primary mission should be (and should have always been) the utter and complete annihilation of our enemies who are there, using whatever force is necessary.

It may not be "ripe" but it is certainly obvious.  The only "friendly" government we could leave behind would be a secular military strongman.  I want you to search that long term memory you just boasted of, does this description sound sort of familiar?

You are in other words proposing exactly the same meddling that got us in this position in the first place.

Have you literally learned nothing from the last three decades in Iraq?

  Having not been to Iraq, I cannot pretend to speak authoritatively, but once again I fear that we have been more concerned (or at least as concerned) with showing the Iraqis that they are our friends as we have been with showing our enemies that they are defeated.

Making them our friends is definitively the way you do win a counterinsurgency.  Try this:

http://www.au.af.mil...

Best practices in counter insurgency by a professor at the Department of Defense Analysis, Naval Postgraduate School.  Take note of what has and does work in counterinsurgency and what doesn't.  The very first thing mentioned?  Human rights.  The second?  A well functioning justice system.  Counterinsurgency military work is down the list and comprises only advisory roles for the foreign power.

Again you are advising us to stay on the same self destructive path, just more so.

Given a choice between leaving behind a democratic Iraq in the hands of a group like Hamas, or a non-democratic state which is friendly to Western interests, I will choose the latter every time.

Friendly powers like Hussein, Noriega, Ho Chi Minh, the Mujahadeen?  Those kind of friendly powers?  How many times does this strategy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" have to bite you on the butt before you stop resorting to it? 

Another dozen times?  Two dozen?  Help me out here, I want to know when I can actually depend on your side of the aisle to treat american foreign policy as more complicated than a rambo movie.

I appreciate that you guys have woken up to the fact that maybe there is something to debate here but so far you're still just throwing out the used (and failed) talking points.  You need to dig a lot deeper before you are actually in the national discourse.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

Read Gov Dean's speech in the Council of Foreign Relations given 1 month before the Iraq War started,  closely---and you find the real reasons "liberals" opposed this war.  And you will realize how prescient he is.

Joe Wilson said too about Democracy in Iraq months before the war started--If you establish Democracy in Iraq--the one who will win is the populist candidate who will stir emotions and passions from the electorate--and those who will stir hate of Israel and US will be the one who wins.  He said Saddam would be the closest friendliest leader you would have.

Also it has also been said 66% of Iraq are Shiites with kinship to Iran--thus who else would be Iraq's leader--except a Iran friendly theocratic islamist leader.

http://www.gwu.edu/~...

To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.Nor has the Administration prepared sufficiently for the possible retaliatory attacks on our home front that even the President's CIA Director has stated are likely to occur. It has always been important, before going to war, for our troops to be well-trained, well-equipped, and well-protected. In this new era, it is as important that our people on the home front also be well-protected.

The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.

.....

So I want to be clear.Saddam Hussein must disarm.

.........

In the past, UN inspections destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity in Iraq than were destroyed in the Gulf War.The inspectors are now back inside Iraq.They are interviewing scientists. Confiscating papers. Conducting surprise visits. This past weekend, the lead inspectors reported that Iraqi cooperation, while still not satisfactory, is improving. Iraq has dropped its longstanding objections to U-2 surveillance flights. And serious proposals are being made for strengthening the inspection teams, making them bigger, and shielding them from intimidation.

The President dismisses all this,............

And if we believe terrorists - especially if they are terrorists linked to al Qaeda - have set up a poison and explosives training center in Northern Iraq, outside Saddam Hussein's control, why haven't we verified that information and destroyed that camp?...........

We know that Saddam will get away with whatever he can.But what can he get away with as long as Iraq is inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of no fly zones, and barred from receiving weapons and other strategic materials?

  The CIA and Defense Department have indicated that, by far, the most likely scenario for Saddam using chemical or biological weapons - or sponsoring a terrorist attack - would be precisely if we invaded Iraq,
  because then he would have nothing to lose.  Neither President Bush in the State of the Union nor Secretary Powell at the UN mentioned that intelligence assessment. And it is just one of many issues the President has not yet adequately addressed.........

It is possible, however, that events could go differently, and that the Iraqi Republican Guard will not sit out in the desert where they can be destroyed easily from the air.It is possible that Iraq will try to force our troops to fight house to house in the middle of cities - on its turf, not ours - where precision-guided missiles are of little use.It is possible that women and children will be used as shields and our efforts to minimize civilian casualties will be far less successful than we hope.

There are other risks.Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.

Iran and Turkey each have interests in Iraq they will be tempted to protect with or without our approval.........

And, perhaps most importantly, there is a very real danger that war in Iraq will fuel the fires of international terror.Anti-American feelings will surely be inflamed among the misguided who choose to see an assault on Iraq as an attack on Islam, or as a means of controlling Iraqi oi......

We need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world.

.................

To me, one of the best examples of long range vision was the Marshall Plan, put in place after World War II. That Plan was based on a clear understanding that America was not an island, and that our prosperity and freedom depended on the prosperity and freedom of our friends in Europe. And so we reached out to societies that had been devastated by war and helped them recover.The payoff was enormous. During the Cold War, those societies served as a living demonstration of the opportunities created by democracy. They helped bring down the Berlin Wall, and suddenly a continent that had been torn apart by centuries of strife came together in liberty and peace.

Now, we have a new opportunity to do on a global basis what the Marshall Plan did for Western Europe. By that, I do not mean massive new aid programs, although I do favor increased investments in fighting global poverty and disease.I have in mind a vision that would open the door for every country on every continent to participate in a system of shared duties and benefits.I have in mind an integrated world system in which every nation has incentives to abide by the global rules of the road - especially in such areas as fighting terrorism, respecting human rights, conducting trade, observing fair worker standards, protecting the environment and combating corruption and crime......

No "Liberals" for whatever it means, were against Iraq War because it is a flawed policy.  Liberals supported Afghanistan and First Gulf War--so it has nothing to do with Gore but everything to do with common sense.

1. Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and if there were WMD it was not significant enough or it has been degraded enough that it is not enough to go to war.  Besides Saddam seems to be controlled with No Flight zones and embargo.

2.  There was a war going on--against AlQueda and Afghanistan and we are to take our eyes of the ball?

3.  War would be expensive in terms of lives and money and require nation building--for what end?  Is it our job to do that for another country. Money is better put to use in homeland security.

4.  And what does Democracy in Iraq mean?  Iraq had a very secular society.  If you want Democracy that means 66% are Shiites and akin to Iran who is a theocratic and fundamentalist Islamic state sponsoring Hezbollah and other terrorists groups.

5.  If you just dont want Saddam--then there is  what we called a "coup" or "people power"  that you can fund.

6.  And if Iraq was really dangerous,  Bush 41 would have removed him then especially with an active genocide going on and use of chemical weapons.

After 12 years you removing Saddam a priority?

7.  Also if you manage to conquer Iraq--havent you learned about insurgency--how many countries in the world still is plagued with that problem.

I don't read or hear any metrics.

How do we know when we're done in Iraq?  A "stable government?" What are the metrics of a stable government or even a slightly functioning society, neither of which exist at present?

There is effectively no government in Iraq now, at least not a government that would stand for more than a couple of months after we left.  How do you propose we impose an effective government? And the rhetoric about killing all our enemies there by any means necessary... How many are our sworn enemies, bent on killing Americans globally, and how many would forget all about us and kill each other with an even greater reckless abandon in a drive for power/control/riches, and couldn't give a damn about us once we pull up stakes?

Kill al Sadr.  The guy doesn't even control his own militia anymore. I think we've heard that fable one too many times, as if killing some character propped up as the devil will somehow lead to another corner turned. Remember the deck of cards? Saddam's sons? The capture of Saddam? Zarqawi's death? Saddam's trial? And now al Sadr's death will be the next corner turned? Sure, the guy may need to be killed, but so should thousands of other guys, I suppose.

Perhaps we just go on killing and killing and killing.  And we can add more troops and kill more and more and more... losing more of our troops and treasure in the process. But all I can say is, apparently, some of us have learned not a goddamned thing from Vietnam. We kept adding troops there... to what effect?

Here's the problem, Leon: Fighting a standstill war against an entrenched, native insurgency is almost always a losing proposition, short of making a mammoth committment of men and materiel over a very long period of time.  So how long do you want to commit mammoth amounts of our people and resources to Iraq?  A decade?  Two decades?

In Vietnam, we stayed seven years too long at a cost of an additional 30,000 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in our own materiel, and in training and arming a South Vietnamese military that lasted about a year after we pulled up stakes. Nevermind the puppet government we propped up there that fell even before the military collapsed.

And you're proposing a similar puppet government for Iraq. How long would any such regime last after we leave, given that what we have been doung, essentially, is training and arming sectarian militias?  Hell, we can't even get the Iraqis to supply the number of troops our commanders have asked for in Baghdad! Guess what? Unfortunately, the last stable, secular government there was the one we overthrew, and it is likely to be last stable, secular government in Iraq in our lifetimes.

As for your broad-brushed assertions about the "anti-war left," are you really that ignorant about the great majority of Americans who disagree with this war? Certainly there is a very small, minority segment of the 65% of Americans who want to get out of Iraq who qualify as "anti-war." But a much larger percentage of those who want out of this never-ending disaster are "anti-endless-stupid war." And that includes most Democrats who were eager to go into Afghanistan and finish the job before these neocon peabrains led us on this massive distraction in Iraq. You must think the American public is made up of rubes who can't recognize a black-hole of lives and treasure when they see one. (Yes, some folks actually remember Vietnam.)

The "kill-`em-all-and-the-hell-with-politics" rhetoric is silly because it defies all reality.  Gee, maybe Ronald Reagan will come back to life, ride in a horse and solve all our problems! Ender is always promoting the same fables here.

You're simply lining up the groups to blame when we finally admit that this was a royal screw-up from before we ever invaded. You sound like Richard Perle. It's always someone else's fault.

Newsflash: The neocons were always scoffed at and viewed as fringe lunatics by the foreign policy establishments of both parties because their insane pipe dream of overthrowing Iraq, Syria and Iran had disatrous consequences for the region and the world. And they were too myopic and ignorant to see those consequences.

The neocons were a running joke in foreign policy circles.

Well, the neocon movement is dead now. Because the very scenarios predicted by knowledgeable and realistic foreign policy and military policy hands from both sides of the political spectrum have come true.

It is sadly and pathetically humorous to watch the neocon crowd running around in Chinese-fire-drill fashion with their arms and index fingers extended outward, looking to blame everyone else for the biggest fiasco in U.S. foreign policy history. But they never accept any of the blame... even though those who knew better saw this coming long before W and Dick and Rummy and Wolfowitz and Feith ever made a move.

Turn that finger back on yourselves and your ignorant neocon friends. Because that's where ALL the blame for this trainwreck resides.

It was  stupid idea doomed to failure from the very outset.

For god's sake, as a proud member of the Party of Personal Responsibility, take some responsibility for this friggin' mess.

What a bunch of cowards...

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

The one that says, "Us Democrats didn't oppose the Gulf War." Go back and check the Senate roll call vote - it was 52-47. You get one guess as to what per cent of that 47 was comprised of Democrats.

"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.

... because they knew the history of the neocon/PNAC crowd who had been advocating for the overthrow of Iraq, Iran and Syria since old man Bush opted not to chase Saddam back to Baghdad in `92.

When PNAC was started in `96, Richrad Perle and his cohorts like Michael Ledeen, Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol and the rest of the gang had already been advocating the neocon dream of ousting the regimes in these three countries.

The truth is (and it is borne out in the multiple books by insiders including Paul O'Neill and Richrad Clarke, among others) the neocons on the Bush administration were going into Iraq sometime during Bush's first term, regardless of 9-11.

One of the primary reasons many Democrats were opposed to going into Iraq was because we had not finished Afghanistan -- where the very terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were trained and funded.

As for Maliki doing anything

And now, Afghanistan is sliding back and idiots like Bill Frist are suggesting that "there is no military solution in Afghanistan," and we may want to invite the Taliban into the political process!  (Gee, Bill, do you really think the Taliban has any interest whatsoever of being involved in a government that woiuld require them sahring power with our puppet? That's as ignorant as the neocon dream of overthrowing three countries in the Middle East as a way to change the region.)

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

the democrats in Congress with we the people who did not support this war.

We could also confuse you with your Republican leadership  in Congress that chose to look the other way when a Florida Congressman was using the page program as his personal playground.

We have heard this song and dance a million times right along with the oft repeated railing against democrats that if they didn't support the war they were opposed to fighting evil and unpatriotic. It is somewhat tiresome.

I am sure many of those democrats now regret their vote, as many of the republicans regret ignoring certain scandalous behavior. Such is life in politics.

It is the economy, stupid.

but how 'bout sticking to "goshdarn" or your favorite variation... thanks!

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

have much for which to answer, but I don't believe we know the facts yet with respect to how much they knew about Foley and when they knew -- no need to rush to judgment.

I would agree that using one vote to determine broad support is probably too simplistic. I wasn't paying much attention to politics in 1991 =) so I don't know exactly how the public and how Democratic politicians reacted after the invasion began. It was a pretty short war, however, and my impression was that it was pretty popular -- weren't Bush's approval ratings as high as 90%?

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

I used a bad word.  Thanks for responding to the post.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

But......

the vote was for the authorization to use military force as a last resort. It wasn't entirely  certain that the war was inevitable. I think some that voted for it were hoping for more restraint from the leadership.

The powers that be knew enough to know better, and they still thought Foley should run for Congress yet again, and encouraged it.

It is the economy, stupid.

I agree that metrics are needed. I've already had a long discussion about al-Sadr. Sometimes I don't have much unique insight to contribute -- fortunately, we've got plenty of talented and engaging commenters here to pick up the slack.

When we switch sites I'll look into automatically screening posts for objectionable words. Believe it or not I don't particularly enjoy playing mother hen.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

FPers can edit all comments. :)

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

and all this time I thought you were a rooster!

It is the economy, stupid.

That's why I don't like to play a mother hen =)

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

You point out that this diary really is the same ol' with two exceptions: 1) we now have more of a mess with the end result being at best a military dictator if not a religious one (shoulda left Saddam in place, I guess), 2) and let's even do more of what's failing.

No wonder the dems are now in power.  Looking forward to 2008. 

I've got a few special edits in mind already... heh.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

win one of the debates by changing our words around?  :)

Their "great denate" is completely and utterly devoid fo evena single metric.  A lot of hot air and finger-pointing at Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, and, even, the American people for being so dumb that they are bringing down their own nation.

Having been elected to office before, I long ago discovered that when an agenda can't be rationally supported by the facts -- when a case cannot be made conviningly -- the agenda fails.

So all the handwringing over at RedState parallels Leon's desperate attempts to find scapegoats (outside of the people that brought us this disaster) for an endeavor that was doomed to failure before it was even officially launched.

The disdain shown for the intelligence of a majority of the American people in the ResState posts is astounding.

The problem with Iraq is that there is no convincing case to be made for staying.

So it's the fault of Democrats, liberals, the radical ant-war left, the media, the fickle, soft-spine conservatives, generals who won't kill enough, Pentagon policy wonks who won't commit enough troops, etc.

But it's never the fault of the ignorant policy that would never work in the first place.

It is not a "great debate" over there.  It's more like "the great finger-pointing."

Without a metric to be found.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

you were elected to office?  Right on!

Good observation, btw.  The party of responsibility does just the opposite again.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

I suspect that the real (though perhaps subconscious) source of their animus has little to do with the war or its aims, and everything to do with the fact that they still believe Bush to be an illegitimate President, who stole four years from Al Gore. But I digress.

But I don't consider it a childish desire for revenge.  I considered Bush incompetent to exercise the functions of the presidency, whether he beat Gore or Hitler by 2 or 200 electoral votes.  You would agree that managing a war is one of the more difficult and important tasks a president can undertake.  If one considers the president to be dangerously incompetent, one naturally desires that he do as little as possible.

Take whoever you believe would be the most incompetent Democrat as president (Kerry? Dean? Pelosi?).  Now imagine they are claiming it's vital to go to war with North Korea, and that they "know where the nukes are".  Would you oppose them because you're a dove, or because you don't trust them?

Nothing big. Big enough to know the dynamics of serving as an elected official (citywide) in a sometimes hostile environment (and people can get very hostile and intense when it comes to their kids).

But agendas rise or fall on their merits. When one side can't make a convincing case for their agenda, they have two choices: try and sneak it through using either false pretenses or slight of hand, OR putting it up for a vote and watching it fail.

I've seen both.  But choosing the firt, less honorable option doesn't really gain anything for those pushing such an agenda. Because an idea that can't be explained in a way that draws support will fail once it's exposed to the light.

Making the case and letting it rise or fall on its merits is the only way these things work in the long run.

In the case of Iraq, Bush tried and failed. He couldn't make a convincing enough case to the American people. I don't know how anyone turns that around. But I certainly don;t see anything at RedState (in the first four essays) that would lead me to believe those arguments will convince Americans that we need to stay in Iraq for an extended period.  And, certainly, essentially calling Americans "fools" for bailing on Iraq ain't gonna' do it.  And there's plenty of that going on over there.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

That if you don't see criticism of Bush and the administration in the posts at RedState, then you aren't exactly reading them. Just because we don't adopt your hysterical conspiracy theories doesn't mean that several of us (including most notably myself and Paul) have expressly rejected the stated mission in this war - which, after all, came from the President himself. This, of course, is a connection which is obvious to all, so we don't feel the need to belabor it with random smatterings of "neocons!" or "Wolfowitz!" or "PNAC!" just to make sure everyone knows where we stand. But we've been sufficiently clear to the clear-headed, I think.

"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.

It is the economy, stupid.

framed in opposition re: two choice only?

1.anti-war sentiment

2.lack of trust.

How about #3.

3. The consequences of your actions based on historical perspective.

It is the economy, stupid.

This polciy was written and directed by neocons. Deny it if you want. Read the writings and speeches of the PNACers. This is precisely what they had ben advocating for years.  You can deny it all you want, but it isn't a "hysterical conspiracy theory." It is history. Written in black-and-white.

This war was pre-ordained with Bush's election and most folks in Washington knew it.

Um, what is the "stated mission of the war?" At least that stated by Bush? Just curious.

As for the lack of metrics in the posts at RedState, I note you do not debate that point.  Just a lot of rhetoric about setting up a "stable government."

That means nothing in the current context of Iraq.

How long do you think we would need to be there to ensure such an entity? At what cost in terms of force and dollars? Yeah, yeah, I know, you're not a military expert.

The problem you guys have is that the American public is way ahead of you. How do you turn them around and commit to the massive amounts of people and resources we would need to build a "stable" Iraq?

Yeah, if only we had a general who would just go in and blow them all to hell...

That and five bucks might get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

by being heavy handed, play dirty pool, making shady deals everything that Newt's new vision for Republicans was supposed to clean up.

It is the economy, stupid.

How will we know when we've finished the mission in Iraq? Is is the number of hours of electricity in a day? The number of barrels of oil exported? The decline in violence? Regular meetings of legislative bodies? A police force that is not made up primarily of death squads and sectarian militias? An Iraqi military that will show up where and when it is supposed to show up?

All of this blather about "when Iraq is stable" is just that - blather. It's an open-ended committment that this country does not have an interest in at this time.

Bush tried to make the case for "staying the course" right up until two weeks before the election when he bailed on that concept in the face of a coming Democratic tsunami. Abizaid said today that we don't need more troops (despite calls from some including McCain that we need 50,000 more -- shades of Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam).

I just want someone who is advocating either staying or even increasing our presence to tell us when and how the situation improves and how we can measure that improvement.

No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- has been able to make that case and that is why support for the war continues to fall.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

the republicans are asking the same thing right now.

it's not enough to blame the person who actually is responsible for the policy, in the "The Buck Stops Here" sense - I must now spend my days refuting all the persons who might have influenced it?

If this is the new approach, we folks who follow politics just became busier people.

Also, I think that you missed the not-so-subtle point that, in Paul and I's view, the current problem does not admit of a political solution, and so therefore your cry for a "metric" is hollow, at least as it's directed towards me.

Also, I feel no further need to sell a long and expensive on-the-ground operation in Iraq, since I don't necessarily support one anymore.

"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.

Which is a question that has never to my mind been fully answered.

I have my own theories and none of them are pretty.

It is the economy, stupid.

Also, I feel no further need to sell a long and expensive on-the-ground operation in Iraq, since I don't necessarily support one anymore.

You don't support a "long and expensive on-the-ground operation in Iraq."

What is it you are advocating, exactly? And what are the odds of what you are advocating taking place, given the current realities on the ground, both in Iraq and here at home?

By the way, Bush wasn;t the driver on Iraq. That was Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and Feith, all of whom, save Feith, signed the original Statement of Principles for PNAC.

And what were these folks advocating in January 1998 ?

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

And you want to claim that discussion of a PNAC agenda consitutes :hysterical conspiracy theories?"

I thought you were a student of history?

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

And I, for one, do appreciate the fact that RedStaters have begun to look at these issues more critically -- and I salute anyone who is willing to discuss a way forward in Iraq without a bunch of needless partisan sniping.  Sadly, the sniping is featuring prominently in RedState's 'debate'.  But I guess we can't have everything. 

But seriously, what took you so long?

And, while I understand that you (rightly) wish to avoid 'conspiracy theories' and needless armchair quarterbacking after the fact, do you really contend that discussion of PNAC and their influence on administration policy is irrelevant and out of bounds? 

That's a little like opening a discussion on the Church of England without being willing to discuss Henry the 8th, isn't it?

Power isn't all that money buys.

I will refrain from offering an opinion at this moment.

That said, I stand by our military and our leadership and support their mission in Iraq.

Especially in light of the current top news:

Top general warns against Iraq troop timeline :

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The assertion by Gen. John Abizaid seemed to put him at odds with some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq...

Asked about his testimony in August that Iraq could fall into civil war and that the sectarian violence was as bad as he had ever seen it, Abizaid said that more recently the situation has improved, while still troubling. He visited Baghdad in recent days.

“It’s certainly not as bad as the situation appeared back in August,” Abizaid said, adding that he saw growing confidence among Iraqis in their government. “It’s still at unacceptably high levels,” he said of the sect-on-sect violence “I wouldn’t say that we have turned the corner in this regard, but it’s not nearly as bad as it was in August.”

So for now I stand with President Bush.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

Yeah, this ain't rocket science.

The policy was planned and driven by PNACers, particularly Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Cheney, Rummy, Feith and Libby, all of whom would soon appear in a newly-elected Bush administration:

Wolfowitz testimony

Administration officials continue to claim that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council is to send U.S. forces to Baghdad. That is wrong. As has been said repeatedly in letters and testimony to the President and the Congress by myself and other former defense officials, including two former secretaries of defense, and a former director of central intelligence, the key lies not in marching U.S. soldiers to Baghdad, but in helping the Iraqi people to liberate themselves from Saddam.

Saddam’s main strength -- his ability to control his people though extreme terror -- is also his greatest vulnerability. The overwhelming majority of people, including some of his closest associates, would like to be free of his grasp if only they could safely do so.

A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991. Establishing a safe protected zone in the South, where opposition to Saddam could rally and organize, would make it possible:

  • For a provisional government of free Iraq to organize, begin to gain international recognition and begin to publicize a political program for the future of Iraq;

  • For that provisional government to control the largest oil field in Iraq and make available to it, under some kind of appropriate international supervision, enormous financial resources for political, humanitarian and eventually military purposes;

  • Provide a safe area to which Iraqi army units could rally in opposition to Saddam, leading to the liberation of more and more of the country and the unraveling of the regime.

They didn't even follow their own advice.  They disbanded the Iraqi army.

Jeez, I can't believe I actually have to defend bringing up PNAC to Leon. He wants to pretend as if they never existed and they had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

that he is "very encouraged".

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

more of the General's words:

"When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing," Abizaid said. "They believe that they can move the country toward stability with our help. And I believe that."

Pretty much how I felt about Democrats in Washington DC - despair mongers.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council. But once it began it would begin to change the calculations of Saddam’s opponents and supporters -- both inside and outside the country -- in decisive ways. One Arab official in the Gulf told me that the effect inside Iraq of such a strategy would be “devastating” to Saddam. But the effect outside would be powerful as well. Our friends in the Gulf, who fear Saddam but who also fear ineffective American action against him, would see that this is a very different U.S. policy. And Saddam’s supporters in the Security Council -- in particular France and Russia -- would suddenly see a different prospect before them. Instead of lucrative oil production contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime, they would now have to calculate the economic and commercial opportunities that would come from ingratiating themselves with the future government of Iraq.

No wonder the PNAC/neocon crowd was laughed at by the foreign policy establishments of both parties. They were absolutely friggin' clueless about the consequences of an invasion of Iraq.

Look at this pie-in-the-sky baloney from Wolfowitz. This is the same guy who promised the Congress that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the entire rebuilding process.

These guys were, are, and will always be, nothing but clowns.

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

Paul Wolfowitz is not and never has been the President. Richard Perle is not and never has been the President. No one is disputing that neocons exist, or that they have advocated this policy, or that some of them may have (and did) have the ear of the President. The point is that the President, and only the President, is the person capable of ultimately putting a policy into practice - of signing on that particular dotted line. When I want to criticize the repeated failures to get a partial-birth abortion ban passed in the 90s, I don't go after Kate Michelman, et al, I criticize Bill Clinton, because he's the one who holds the pen. This is absolutely elementary.

If you're still curious as to whether I think that the neocons were wrong, in retrospect, I can only assume that you haven't read my piece. The point is that the only person who should (and indeed, can) be criticized in an official capacity is the person who signed on the dotted line - namely, Bush.

I know that there are a lot of boogeymen in the liberal closet, but they are none of my concern or business.

"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.

Now it's all Bush's fault, eh? That's easy.

I suggest the netire noecon/PNAC agenda has been repudiated. (A very good thing.)  Bush may have been the guy who signed off on their fantasy, but he didn't come up with this plan. Hell, Wolfowitz went before Congress at the outset of this disaster and prmised that Iraqi oil would pay for all the rebuilding.

And I still haven't read or heard a single estimate from those who claim we need to stay of how long it will take for "victory in Iraq" (one of the most nebulous phrases since "I did not have sex with that woman") to be achieved.

A year?  Ten years? Twenty years?

Are you for staying or going? Or neither?  Or both?

If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?

First, I want to thank you for the post, because it's a lot to chew on.  You've obviously wrestled with the contradictions of political ideals with practicality, and that's something that none of us have ever (or will ever) do to full satisfaction: life is like that.  The reduction of the Iraq war to broad strokes has not only killed dialogue between the sides, but it's made light of an increasingly disastrous situation on the ground.

And I want to establish that on the outset, because I'm calling BS on the res