"Redeployment"
Blogging might be light the next few days as Thursday I'm traveling to Washington D.C. for some work. Meanwhile...
I spent two hours sitting in as analyst/kibbitzer this morning on a local public radio show and during its course had the opportunity to hear three congressional Democrats getting interviewed by the host:Â Rep. Xavier Becerra, Rep. Howard Berman and Rep. Brad Sherman (all of them SoCal moderate to liberals).
Now that the Dems control both houses of congess, they were asked, just exactly what will they propose regarding Iraq? There was a lot of actual stumbling and stammering, a lot of empty platitudes about "changing course," and all three used the new buzzphrase of "redeployment."
I still have no idea what the term means. And I'm sure I speak for about 299 million Americans on that matter. As I understand the term it means something like this: start pulling U.S. troops out of the line of fire in Iraq and re-position them "over the horizon" to some nearby regional bases (Turkey?). Once redeployed, the troops would be on standby, ready to intervene when and if things got really ugly in Iraq.
But things are ugly everyday in Iraq. So once again, what does redeployment really mean? Not to play dumb, what really lurks behind the term is an implied stalling maneuver. Start moving U.S. troops slowly, perhaps ever so slowly out of Iraq, at first under the political cover of redeployment and then eventually...eventually, I suppose, Americans won't really care what happens in Iraq.
I don't think this sort of Democratic obfuscation will wash. War is like sex. You're either in or you're out. Anything in between doesn't count for much.
Americans have had it with this war and are now running way ahead of the political leadership of both parties. The new Democratic line about how they're going to squeeze some sort of lemonade from the bitter fruit of the invasion and occupation insults the collective intelligence. All the Dems interviewed on the air today mumbled something or another about setting the course straight, getting Iraq right, yada yada.
What's missing now is the political courage to state a simple truth which, I believe, a vast majority of Americans would understand and agree with: George W. Bush got us into a war we shouldn't have fought and which we cannot conclude. It's time to admit our mistake, give Iraqis notice, provide some funding and security support for the Iraqi government, and commence to orderly withdraw. Not redeploy.
OK, a nice fantasy.
P.S. A stray thought. If GWBush was ready to toss Rummy on the first day of the New Order, how would the elections might have been different if Bush had done this a month ago? Was he in that mych denial until the returns landed on his desk?
November 8th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
“Americans have had it with this war and are now running way ahead of the political leadership of both parties.”
I think the election results make this clear. But watch out for plenty of fighting to come over what to do next. Retired Maj Gen John Batiste was just on with Anderson Cooper on CNN calling for a major new effort, sealing borders, more troops, etc etc. Those Bush critics who have welcomed the critique of retired generals that we are not doing it right and should have sent more troops in the first place are now going to have to confront the reality that there is no political mandate for “victory” in Iraq–which Bush called for again in his press conference yesterday–but only a mandate for getting out. Faced with this situation, the new Democratic leaders are likely to stall, as Marc suggests, and if they do anti-war leaders will have to decide if they are really against the war or just against Bush. Or maybe we need new anti-war leaders. Whatever the case, some mistakes are so serious that they cannot be fixed, and Iraq may well be one of them.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:19 am
While I am here, let me make two other comments about the election results.
First, we should acknowledge Marc’s prescient remarks going way back about how much Karl Rove’s “genius” has been overrated. Rove was such a great genius that he could not think of anything to do other than the same old, same old smears and exploitation of September 11 and the war on terrorism. One time too many, Karl, as Marc rightly predicted.
Second, there is a foreign policy elephant in the room in the wake of this election: The almost complete disengagement of the Bush administration from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, combined with the fact that so many leading Democrats and victors in the midterms are slavish followers of whatever Israel does, starting with Hillary Clinton on down. If bipartisanship ends up meaning a continued collusion between Republicans and Democrats in continuing to uncritically support Israel, then the terrorists will continue to gain recruits faster than we can kill or capture them, since Palestine is one of the central rallying cries of the Islamic extremists. We shall see what kind of leadership the Democrats provide on this issue–if any.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:25 am
“War is like sex.”
Define “is”.
“You’re either in or you’re out. Anything in between doesn’t count for much.”
According to this administration, they didn’t really need a congressional resolution permitting the use of force because it was all just a continuation of the conflict that started in 1991. I.e., we were already “in”. But did you think of it that way? Or was that really more like phone sex?
Were we “in” Cambodia when B-52s were tearing up its countryside (but no American troops dying on the ground)? Or was that “out” because intercourse with a condom is not really “in”, in some topological sense? Were we “in” Afghanistan when we had a handful of CIA operatives aiding various groups resisting Russian proxy government? Or was that more like what people used to call “heavy petting”?
I laugh when I hear people like Murtha talk about withdrawing from Iraq but keeping an “over-the-horizon” force in … Kurdistan. Would we still be “in” Iraq? I think it would depend on which side of your mouth you felt like talking out of, on a given day. (”Stay the course!” “We’ve never been ’stay the course’”. Watch for Cheney’s lopsided smirk to change sides, any day now.)
I think Americans have this problem of thinking they understand sovereignty. There are actually about four different kinds of sovereignty, and they are all a matter of degree. America happens to have a lot of sovereignty by all four definitions. So we relate to the concept as some sort of absolute when in fact America is a big exception in the world. We just don’t quite get what it means to be a relatively weak nation-state. Perhaps from Iraqis’ point of view, America was continuously “in”–U.S. planes were invading their airspace, occasionally some forces supplied and armed by the U.S. made some incursion under the “regime change” legislation, and sanctions were a little like being under siege. Certainly from the point of view of Saddam’s propaganda machine, we were still “in”. But from the American voter’s point of view, we were “out”.
All this might help you understand why I call my pet theory of the likely outcome “The Kurdistan Petrostate QUASI-Exit Strategy.” It’s a way to reap some benefit from actually being “in”, while posing as being “out”. It might even be a way to avoid calling it all a defeat, even if it couldn’t be called victory in any reasonable view.
November 9th, 2006 at 6:01 am
“If GWBush was ready to toss Rummy on the first day of the New Order, how would the elections might have been different if Bush had done this a month ago? Was he in that mych denial until the returns landed on his desk?”
Little as I like cutting the guy any slack whatsoever, I buy part of his story: Gates was on his way in already, but Dubya et al. didn’t want to bring him onboard in a way that looked like it was subordinating effective war fighting to partisan politics–even though that’s what it would have been: a sop to Repubs and independents increasingly estranged from him on Iraq. However, whatever votes the GOP might have retrieved on that front probably wouldn’t have made up for votes lost elsewhere. (If you doubt this, check the comment sections on GOP base blogs–they are almost all sad to see Rummy go, even the ones who admit he made some serious mistakes. And I haven’t noticed anybody saying that Rumsfeld was good, but Gates will be as good or better).
Dubya has as much as admitted that his promising to keep Rummy on to the end was just a politically convenient lie. Even if the GOP had not taken this “thumpin’” and somehow kept both chambers, Dubya would probably have let the damaged Rummy goods go, but from a position of strength. Now he has to do it as a gesture of good will. Still, it’s an effective gesture. He sounds very conciliatory right now, which I suspect is a pose while they regroup. The strategy might be that they will *appear* to be sincerely cooperative and bipartisan on sorting out Iraq, but set the deals up on this issue and others so that they can point the accusatory finger at “obstructive”, “unrealistic”, “counterproductive”, “defeatist” Dems later on. If they have even a ghost of a chance at making the “Defeatocrat” label stick, they’ll go for it. And why not? It’s just about the only hope of the GOP staying even or winning back some clout in 2008. And if the Dems run some dog of candidate easily labeled “defeatocrat” in that year, and the GOP comes up with somebody the voters like, they might even get a third term of GOP control of the Offal Office.
November 9th, 2006 at 6:02 am
We should acknowledge no such thing. Rove was given high points by a media types who have their thumbs pressed down hard on the scale for the Republicans 24/7, 365 days a year. When you are allowed to rutinely accuse the other side of treason ( a practice never condemmed round these parts), how smart do you have to be to slime your way to victory, at least sometimes?
In his mad dash to make Iraq the Dems problem(as he always did his level best to make it their doing) Cooper says nothing about the effects his fast withdrawl will have on the situation in Iraq; though he’ll be happy to blame whoever gets killed on the Dems down the road a (short) piece.
“War is like Sex. You’re either in or out. in between doesn’t count for much.” On a moral level such weighty analysis is a pretty good argument to reinstate the draft, institute national service, start taxing the hell out of the rich, eleminated a lot of socaill programs in favor of miliatry programs, make gas rationing manditory, and start hearings on war profiteering. Some of that may be a good idea, I would sincerely doubt it’s what the American people voted for.
We trashed Iraq. Simple decency requires that we not throw the people there away like garbage, no matter how tasty it is to score points against Nancy Pelosi. Bush probably made a deal with Baker that he could keep Rummy as a figurehead if he pulled off another victory, with silly tactics like making John Kerry’s loyalty the issue. This blog did it’s bit, this time it just wasn’t enough.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Marc, WHAT have you been smoking? “Americans have had it with this war and are now running way ahead of the political leadership of both parties. “
This statement is true, IF and ONLY IF, Lamont beats Lieberman in the general election.
Lamont and “anti-war” lost.
Wake up, Marc, Lefties, anti-war / pro-terrorist whiners. The Dems have no chance to win the WH in 2008 without looking like they are winning in Iraq.
High Rep turnout means Rove IS a … good Rep operator. But an even higher media based Bush-hate / Rep-hate / Corruption-hate / big-Gov’t hate coalition against Reps won for “changing course.” Only Leftists were voting Dem to support losing in Iraq; most were voting to dump Reps for anybody else.
In other words, same car, same road, new driver, same direction.
We stand down as Iraqis stand up.
However, you are very right about one important aspect of this Limited War, like every Limited War, Bush: “got us into a war … which we cannot conclude.”
In Limited War, the winners cannot control the ending. Only the losers can “conclude” the war, by ending their fighting and losing. This applies to France in Algeria, & VietNam, the US in Vietnam, Israel and Palestine, and the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Are you also going to say we should leave Afghanistan? If not, how many Americans must die before you think we should?
The Dems in power has this huge silver lining for the Reps — the war in Iraq will now become a Democrat Party war, too. After being depressed about the Dem victory for a week even before it happened, I’m already getting enthusiastic about the Dems in power.
Now, two years after Kerry first talked about his “plan” for Iraq, the voters might finally get some details about what the Dem plan is. And I look forward to anti-war Leftists going batsh*t ratsh*t crazy when it turns out to be … stay the course, with different drivers (and different slogans!).
Thanks again for your truthfulness about how Dem “redeployment” is BS. I keep reading you because you’re one of the few Bush-haters honest enough to say how naked the Dem emperors are.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Stick with this Blog, Liberty, and you’re nutball enthusiasm will only grow! Nobody can say you don’t know who you’re friends are.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:15 am
Tom Grey sais:
“We stand down as Iraqis stand up.”
Who exactly is this ‘we’? My guess is that you’re sitting on your ass as you write this, and situated a good many thousands of miles from any Iraqi mulling over whether he wants to stand up.
Whenever I hear this “We will stand down as…blahblah” bleating, I can’t help but think of
those funny Snickers candy bar commercials. The ones where they ask, “Not going anywhere for awhile?” They could do some really funny ones with the Iraq situation.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:31 am
“The Kurdistan Petrostate QUASI-Exit Strategyâ€
If you’re going to name a pet theory, you’ve got to come up with something that works as an acronym. That’s just basic professionalism.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:45 am
“John Mc Says:
Who exactly is this ‘we’? My guess is that you’re sitting on your ass as you write this, and situated a good many thousands of miles from any Iraqi mulling over whether he wants to stand up.
Whenever I hear this “We will stand down as…blahblah†bleating, I can’t help but think of
those funny Snickers candy bar commercials. The ones where they ask, “Not going anywhere for awhile?†They could do some really funny ones with the Iraq situation. ”
Who the hell do you think pays the taxes that funds soldiers salaries? Whose taxes and time and work funds the weapons, ships, technology, etc, that goes into that sort of operation? How many billion a month out of whose budget?
Please.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Like Marc, I’ve been waiting for Jack Murtha to cut the bullshit. It was, as Bush and Cheney made clear, an election over whether to “cut and run” and the American people, having made their choice, will stand for no less.
“This applies to France in Algeria, & VietNam, the US in Vietnam, Israel and Palestine (I assume your talking about the post ‘67 occupation), and the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
The only one of those “limited wars” that history will judge justified is the U.S. going into Afghanistan after 9/11, and it’s the one from which Bush cut and ran so he could move the action to Iraq. It’s also a war for which there has been consistent almost unananimous support. You can thank BushCo – who’ve pretty much broken our military by going clueless into Iraq – for the half-assed, increasingly FUBAR state of our “limited war” in Afghanistan. If your big argument for a swelling of “pro-Iraq war” ranks among the American people at this late date is that most of the GOP voters crossed over in Connecticut to support Lieberman, you’re pretty much living in your own Lost World.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:19 am
My bad, Christopher. I callously forgot those who refused to go the easy route of volunteering to patrol a streetcorner in Baghdad, and instead made the noble commitment to pay their taxes in full and charge bravely ahead to their local mall in order to secure that new HDTV. Let us not forget these brave souls.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Reg, If Murtha issued a statement today, what would you like to hear him say?
While I won’t go crazy and suggest some Americans may finally be getting cheesed at Bush’s deficet spending; I would say this election suggests that the Dems may have found a winner issue in Stem Cell Research; they might do well with it in the future without Limbaugh’s help.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“Redeployment” means going someplace where the rearguard will not have to shoot their way onto the last transport on its way out.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:58 am
We stand down as Iraqis stand up.
The pilsner must be strong in Slovakia these days.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:03 am
So you want an exit strategy? Good luck! Unlike Vietnam, which was marginal to our interests, the option of just leaving is not on since we really do have a need to keep the world’s oil reserves intact and a mid-east regional war would certainly disrupt that.
So yes, “redeployment” – to Kurdistan where our troops won’t have targets on their backs and where we can keep the Kurds and Turks apart would be a start. We could also keep forces in Kuwait and in Bahrain. And in Mess-O-Potamia? Well they’re going to have their civil war whether we like it or not.
Sorry I can’t be more positive but the good options expired a long time ago.
But I will say this: John McCain’s call for more troops and “Victory” is a non-starter and will make his 2008 bid impossible. Chuck Hegel may be the sleeper candidate.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:05 am
And one more thing. The President is “Commander in Chief” and director of foreign policy. Its his mess. He has to clean it up. Dems do not have to come up with the answer since they can’t impliment it anyway.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Marc, welcome to D.C. If you should be around the Capital on Saturday afternoon, and you can find the Union Pub on Mass. Ave., there’s a free round on me…
The ’somewhere’ between Marc’s opening remarks and the flanks put up by Michael Turner and Tom Grey cover quite a lot of ground. At this point, I find myself trending towards Grey’s side, but for slightly different reasons. Mostly, I think I’ve got a version of that same anxiety affliction as the other 299 million Americans have about the Iraq question. No good options, but the departure of Rumsfeld is an unqualified first step in a better direction.
Robert Fiore might, unfortunately, be right. I think the American anxiety further stems from an underscored realization that our supposed partner, the Iraq government is going to tell us when to leave.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
I think Bush and his administration rightly saw dumping Rummy as a change in course, or, in their eyes, weakness. The bellicose right believes that the appearance of strength is essential in all endevours, and the pragmatic policy shifts and compromises that are a fundamental part of democracy betray weakness. Fear of looking weak is the source of some of their more anti-democratic tendencies. I see this election as not just a rebuke of the president’s Iraq policy, but also his hubris and self-aggrandizing. We are unlikely to see a chastened White House – it just doesn’t seem in their nature – but I hope the mechanisms of our democracy are strong enough to effectively check presidential power.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
“First, we should acknowledge Marc’s prescient remarks going way back about how much Karl Rove’s “genius†has been overrated. ”
Would you at least be willing to admit that catapulting G W Bush to the world’s most powerful position took some serious talent?
November 9th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“Would you at least be willing to admit that catapulting G W Bush to the world’s most powerful position took some serious talent?”
Yes, I would agree that making someone as ignorant and mediocre as Bush into the president took a lot of talent, although the gullibility of millions of Americans helped a lot too.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
What I heard from both parties in the last few days (particularly since the election results were tallied) is that the answer to the Iraq question was about to be announced by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The Dems–Emanuel, Pelosi, Dean, lots of others–have said that the party’s “plan” is memorialized in the still-unannounced Study-Group report.
This is a bizarre approach to public policy-making. The party leadership has contracted-out its policymaking on the largest foreign policy issue of a generation. And the Repubs including the Decider are talking like this is a really good idea.
I think this concept took root when the Dems committed a couple of years ago to implement all the recommendations of the Kean-Hamilton 9-11 Commission Report (even the really intrusive and expensive ones) if they took power. The difference is that we know what we would be committing ourselves to by endorsing the 9-11 Report, but do not know (at least I don’t) what we are touting in the Iraq Study Group report. Even if the leadership has seen (or gotten reports from people who have read) the report, it is plain unseemly to adopt the analysis and recommendations contained in an unreleased report.
It would seem that the firing of Rumsfeld and the hiring of Gates, perhaps not coincidentally a member of the aforementioned Iraq Study Group, is part of a deal with the Dems. If not that, it surely is a sign that Bush/Cheney are going to explore a get-the-hell-out version of declared victory in Iraq.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
The outsourcing manuever shows…
1. just how discredited this administration’s foreign policy apparatus has become.
2. the prevalent presumption that all politicians are playing politics all the time.
3. You don’t have to take full responsibility if the policy fails. You can just blame the fill-in-the-blank Commission.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Should add that the bipartisan enthusiasm for deferring to Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton to determine the next American steps in Iraq would seem to derive from the refusal of anyone to recommend a direction that could result in that party taking blame for the nearly certain tragic aftermath of our adventure there.
On another but somehow related subject, would the electorate embrace or reject a candidate of either party who would propose and push mandatory two-year national service for 19 year olds, with a draft, and with military service as one but not the only option?
It has occurred to me that if a Barack Obama (or other young but established leader) advanced this proposal, it might have a serious chance of both being a good policy and a career-maker for its champion. Of course it could be a career-killer as well.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
The National Service concept is a non-starter as long as Iraq is there. It would be a tough sell in any case. And it would make that “third rail” Social Security look like a cinch!
I think Gates may be a precursor to a “Baker Commission” deal. Or it may be 41’s way of trying, yet again, to bail out his screw-up son. Word is that Gates loathes Chaney and, like Baker, is an old Bush family retainer. I think some sort of deal may be in the works. And the interesting question is will that deal leave John McCain high and dry since as late as yesterday he was still calling for more troops. I think Mr straight talk may be talking himself right out of 2008. Hegel anyone?
November 9th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I would like to do/see polling on the National Service concept. The most interesting aspect of Joe Biden’s brief in support of his candidacy is that no one has asked the American people to do squat in terms of sacrifice after the 9/11 attacks. About all Bush has done has asked for a sort of painless release of rights that no one expects to have to use anyway, and the discretion to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren to build a sales-model western democracy in the former Iraq. He did not seem to know that the indigenous religious versions of the crips and bloods already staked their claims there.
In any event, I wonder whether a politician who called for true sacrifice–and it could well be in support of freedom from reliance on petroleum–would thrive. I think yes, but certainly would like to find out. I suggest Obama because I think it would be very hard for a baby-boomer to convince the younger adult generation to do much of anything.
November 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
“Hegel anyone?”
Do you mean Hagel, or are you just in the mood for some light dialectics.
November 9th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
RLC –
I think you’re right about McCain. It’ll be interesting to see if he can resurrect the straight-shooting image with the press, or has he caved one too many times.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
I still hold to the belief that McCain won’t go to the post, but it is clear that he has been bitten by the bug and intends for now to run.
If you are listening to the right wing of the Repubs, though, they are certain that they have been vindicated, and all that saved the Dems was insufficient dedication by Repubs to the “fundamental” issue of gay marriage.
It is obvious that there is going to be a bloody battle in the Republican Party, but pardon me if I suggest that no party with long-term prospects can be built on anger about whether same sex couples call their relationships “marriage” or not.
If the “lifestyle” Republican right wins the internecine battle, and it will, I just don’t think McCain will fit in. Not to mention, as others above have observed, he has taken a defensible but probably losing side of the multi-sided Iraq debate.
November 9th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
While we’re on the topic of lifestyles.
Has anyone seen the YouTube of Bill Maher outting Ken Mehlman? You’ll probably have a hard time finding the East Coast Larry King feed where he said it. However, I he did state that he was going to out a few folks on his HBO show Friday.
Maher’s going to make Hitchens look like the dilettante he can be.
November 9th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
The funny part was Larry’s reaction. He did kind of a double take, shook his head, and said “you’re kidding me…I didn’t know that!”.
Kind of the crowning touch to the 2006 election.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
“Reg, If Murtha issued a statement today, what would you like to hear him say?”
Wall – I thought I was obviously being snarky in response to Marc’s predictable fussing about Dems – guess I need to spend more time practicing my standup.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
“Would you at least be willing to admit that catapulting G W Bush to the world’s most powerful position took some serious talent?”
I’d call it chutzpah, if Rove weren’t such a white-bread Pillsbury Dough Boy. “Perversity” also comes to mind.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
“Has anyone seen the YouTube of Bill Maher outting Ken Mehlman?”
I don’t believe it…next Maher’s going to be claiming Richard Simmons and David Gest are gay. Where does he come up with this stuff ?
November 9th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Actually I’m a Kantian myself. As long as I’m in a contrite mood yesterday I referred to the incoming SecDef as THOMAS Gates! Of course he was one of Ike’s Defense Secretaries and a principal at J.P. Morgan and Company. I guess since reaching 60 on the first I’m reverting to my my childhood and first interest in politics back in ‘56 with Ike, Suez, and Hungary. A simpler time when Republicans were not a bunch of religious nuts and a Southern Party. Ah those were the days . . . as Archie Bunker might put it!
November 9th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Reg, you can’t help it, your natural decency and spirit of
goodwill will always defuse your sarcasm.
Don’t snark a snarker.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:06 pm
“A simpler time when Republicans were not a bunch of religious nuts and a Southern Party. ”
Spoken like a Kantian. Belated happy b irthday.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Thanks to Richard LoCicero for mentioning the ‘O’ word in his discussion of Iraq options.
It is the reason we are there. It is the reason we supported Saddam for all those years. That picture of Saddam and Rumsfield taken in the mid 80s is now dripping with irony: Saddam is losing his life for misinterpreting US signals that it was OK to invade Kuwait despite the fact that he held the artificial nation-state of Iraq together quite well – Rumsfield lost his job for not replacing Saddam’s army with another viable regime that could hold Iraq together.
In all fairness to the former Sec’t of Defense (as well as the Commander-in-Chief), how were they to know that the Iraqis were going to take thier rhetoric about democracy seriously and thwart numerous US attempts to postpone Iraqi elections.
Meanwhile, ‘oil’ remains the ‘elephant in the living room’ in any frank discussion of post-occupation Iraq. Rest assured that there are some great minds – some think-tank whiz-kids hard at work coming up with a way to maintain US control of Iraq’s oil. The Kurdistan partition answers part of the problem.
Prevention of Iranian/Shia control of Iraq’s central and southern oil fields and protection of Saudi oil are other pieces of the puzzle.
McCain’s call for INCREASED US troops makes no sense electorally (esp if you believe that the mid-term Dem successes were due to dissatisfaction with Iraq – an over-simplification in my opinion) but perfect sense of a politician who seeks to benefit from the Saudi financial largesse that the Bush’s have benefitted from for over a decade and a half, also, a pol who understands the importance of Saudi T-Bill investments (which, I’m sure, is not lost on the Dems who will soon abandon thier ‘re-deployment’ nonsense).
It will be interesting to see how the debate is framed, and interesting to see how the Dems present thier ‘alternative’ to a continuing occupation of Iraq but, rest assured, so long as there is oil under the feet of our troops, the two factions of the business party (and the MSM) will do thier best to convince us of the need for ‘victory’ in Iraq.
The most interesting aspect of this ‘mother of all quagmires’ will be, as in this empire’s previous quagmire, how long the people will continue to supply the munition – both financial and flesh and bone – to support it.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
While here in DC I’ll make sure and drop in on the DCCC and give them RLC’s advice: The newly ensconced Democratic Leadership should come before the American people and say” As to Iraq, this is Bush’s war and we hope he finds a way out.” Yeah… that sounds terrific.
But seriously, as they say, the real key for Democrats is if they have the courage to calibrate their language so it matches reality. Up to now they are saying the criticize the “way Bush has managed the war.” Only when they are willing to say the war itself, and not the way it is managed is the proble, will they be providing any discernible alternative.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Ed W makes some good points however I can’t give Bush nor Rummy this pass:
“In all fairness to the former Sec’t of Defense (as well as the Commander-in-Chief), how were they to know that the Iraqis were going to take thier rhetoric about democracy seriously and thwart numerous US attempts to postpone Iraqi elections.”
History, you know that doomed to repeat the past thing. They wouldn’t have had go back far, like GHB. I believe Kant even took some time off to work on his theories before publishing anything new.
Oil would be a great place for the Dems to start. perhaps if they had ran ads in California showing Clinton superimposed in front Shia militias bombing Southern Iraq and bragging about all of the money they make off of us, instead of babies, we could’ve passed prop 87.
I think that by acknoledging that the war was wrong will also re-energize our foreign allies in helping us figure out a solution.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:17 am
“Only when they are willing to say the war itself, and not the way it is managed is the proble[m], will they be providing any discernible alternative.”
How true. When a society is run by a dictator, whether it be Iraq, Chile, Spain, Germany, Italy, or Pakistan, it is almost always with the complicity of large segments of the population. So simply marching in and liberating everyone at the point of a gun is not a solution, because the basic social structure of the society in question does not automatically change. Only internal processes can make such changes, although they can be encouraged by outside influences as was the case in South Africa. This is the answer to those, including a few here, who have insisted that if you were against the invasion you were for Saddam Hussein. Making fundamental changes in a society is a longterm and very difficult process, and something that Bush and his cohorts had no clue about. As I said above, some things can’t be fixed once they were broken, and a prolonged phased withdrawal won’t fix this one. The sooner we are out the better.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Tom Grey: “anti-war / pro-terrorist whiners”
May Allah, in His mercy, forgive me for only being subjectively pro-terrorist rather than objectively pro-terrorist like the pro-war whiners. May the blood of the crusaders be upon my keyboard. Death to America! Death to the infidel! Death to Israel!
November 10th, 2006 at 6:34 am
You know you guys really need to get out of the house now and try to have some fun. Have a few drinks….maybe get laid even.
This might put a smile on your face. Oh I forgot, even this requires maturity…..and a smile first. Never mind
November 10th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Where is that comment coming from ????
Sounds like Jim R’s had a couple of bad days…
You’ll be back to better stuff than juvenile taunts before long, JR. I have confidence in you.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:10 am
Yo, Jim R, please my comments from DC under previous “…Fleas…” thread.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:13 am
RcerX:
I was being sarcastic. I doubt the neocons can even grasp the concept of democracy. Note how fast they announced to the Nicaraguans that they would withhold aid if Ortega deviated from US directives.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Not you Reg. I know from many of your comments, you’re already drinking too much…..and maybe even having sex during some.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Marc said,
all three used the new buzzphrase of “redeployment.”
I still have no idea what the term means ….
Very good comment, Marc. “Reployment” is Orwellian doublespeak for the U.S. lost in Iraq.
When you “reploy” troops you withdraw than froma battle/war you’re losing. Bush has completely lost the Iraq War.
It’s up to somebody to come
up with an exit stategy. The Baker group (old
retainers of Bush senior) seem to be devising
an exit strategy. They’re diplomats, and want
to involve Syria and Iran. A traditional
way to end a war is to have a peace conference
where you get all involved parties there. I’m
not endorsing the Baker group who haven’t
announced any strategy. I’m merely say they
have announced they will try diplomacy by involving Iran and Syria.
Look at the way the Vietnam ended. The U.s.
and North Vietnam had talks for year where
precious little was said. Finally, they got down
to business, had serious talks, and then U.S.
withdraw troops.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
coitus interruptus ? i don’t think so…..
i still say the big surprise these next two years will be pelosi marginalizing the anti war left wing of the dem party. she and reid have bigger fish to fry–the white house where all the real power lies. by 08 the dems will have had the white house only 12 of the last 40 years. she will, with broad dem approval under the cover of night support bush in iraq, iran etc. yes, you can be sure that there will be a lot of hearings and paper shuffling but at its core the mission will be unchanged. the MSM will tout this supposed new direction with complimenting stories out of iraq etc. usa today already started yesterday with the blurb on afghanistan–more to follow when necessary.
it will be a modern redux of nixon taking over from LBJ. nixon ran on the same program–end the war–he did, 7 years later! as the anti war left jumps up and down pelosi will bitch slap them as they prepare for the clinton white house. if clinton wins the white house then i think the gloves will come off. until then there will be a constant flow of feel good bills that will be passed with the consent of many repub senators and reps. a wolf in sheep’s clothing will be the dem’s MO. many repubs will go along with this dem charade as they think career first, state and country second and third.
nancy’s timetable will be approximately two years, subject to a woman’s right to change her mind. already a lot of the leading dems have made a point of saying there is no timetable. the anti war crowd will be treated just like the black electorate–as the help.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Gee Marc what IS YOUR PLAN? Dems are not going to cut off the funding. That’s suicide and you know it. But there is clearly some fix in the works and it will behoove all parties to let the Baker-Hamilton Committee come up with it. Then 41 will sit junior down and explain the facts of life to him. “Son,” he’ll say, “this is it swallow this shit and never let Chaney out to play again!”
November 10th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Maybe it didn’t have to be, but it most certainly is now. And losing in Iraq will move the battlefield, not end the war. It will move the battlefield to the US and Europe. That’s why Al Queda is celebrating the dems gaining Congress.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
“Maybe it didn’t have to be” Ya think ?
I love how the “democracy in the Middle East crowd” are more than happy, when their failure has turned an entire country into an open wound, to switch the argument to “let’s use Iraq as the killing field, now that we’ve screwed the pooch, so they don’t come after us”. Nice folks. The most bizarre aspect of this argument is the notion that somehow while we’re stuck in Iraq, it protects us from domestic attacks. That’s batshit crazy, of course. Might explain why the effort to protect ports and such has been so lame. Their ability to think strategically is drawn from partisan hype, simplistic slogans and the kind of reductionist analysis one usually finds in Powerpoint presentations. But what else is new with this crew ? And if Al Qaeda is celebrating anything, it’s that Bush has handed them an opportunity to humiliate the U.S. on a silver platter.
(I love it when these morons assume that the best U.S. strategy is dictated by responding to Al Qaeda PR.)
November 11th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Marc,
The Democrats ran either against the war, or Bush’s conduct of it. By doing so, they have gained the power to end the war by cutting off funding. Furthermore, they have created an expectation among their left-wing supporters that they will end it.
The dilemna for the Democrats is that if they end the war, they will create a catastrophe for the nation and the world. While the Democrat leadership is fully conscious of this fact, most of their supporters on the center-left are not. However, the Demcorats and their media cronies will no longer be able to suppress the disasterous consequences of their anti-war policy once they lost it.
So here is my prediction. The Democrats will not end the war until as late as possible before the primary season in 2008. If they fail to end the war by then, they will lose primary challenges to the Ned Lamonts of the world. If they do it any sooner than that, the full consequences of their policy will be manifested before the 2008 general election and they will sacrifice their electoral viability.
So, Marc, this war will not be ending any time soon. The Democrats will instead keep American troops “stuck in Iraq” to get killed as long as possible in order to maintain their electoral viability for 2008.
Yes, the Democrats are that repugnant. You are not foolish enough to believe otherwise, are you?
November 11th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Tom Grey,
The Dems in power has this huge silver lining for the Reps — the war in Iraq will now become a Democrat Party war, too.
We’re all “chicken hawks” now.
November 11th, 2006 at 7:21 am
“The dilemna for the Democrats is that if they end the war, they will create a catastrophe for the nation and the world.”
You little wimps really can’t stand to face your own failures and the depth of the catastrophe that Bush created in Iraq, can you? Is it cowardice or stupidity that drives you ?
November 11th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Both
November 12th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Say what you want, but reality is what it is. No amount of posturing will change it.
As of January, the Democrats will have the power to end the war that they ran against. If they fail to do so, it is for the sole purpose of maintaining their electoral viability for 2008.
The goal of the Democrats is to lose the war. But they won’t do it in January of 2007 because that would be an act of political suicide. Instead, they will consciously send Americans to get killed in a war they fully intend to lose for as long as necessary to preserve their electoral viability.
Every American who gets killed in Iraq between January of 2007 and the time the Democrats actually fulfill their goal of losing the war is nothing less than a victim of politically-motivated, pre-mediated murder.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:10 am
Wow, HA, I never thought I’d be the moderate on this board.
I actually think Rep/ moderate unease at Dems losing in Iraq, and predicting that the Dems will lose, act as sort of a self-negating prophecy.
Sort of like Dems predicting Bush would tap all domestic phone calls — of course, now it will be Dems who tell him to do so…
November 13th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Tom,
If America is not going to fight to win in Iraq, then there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to delay our defeat any longer than is necessary for the military to organize an orderly retreat.
I support staying in Iraq as long as necessary. But my side lost the debate in this election, and America has chosen to accept defeat in Iraq. The Democrats won a mandate for American defeat and the power to deliver it, and now they have a DUTY to the American people and the troops to follow through on their mandate as soon as possible in order to minimize the loss of American lives in Iraq. Furthermore, they have a DUTY to enact their policy on the first day the gavel drops in the new Congress so that America can fully understand the consequences of the Democrat policy going in to the 2008 election cycle.
Needless to say, I think this will be a disaster for America and the world. I also think the Democrat leadership knows this. That is why I think they will delay our withdrawal until as close as possible to the 2008 primary season. They do not want to America to understand the consequences of withdrawal until after the 2008 election.
Every single day after the opening day of the new Congress that the Democrats fail to enact their mandate by cutting of funding of the war will be a day where Americans get killed for a lost cause. I can’t think of any legitimate reason to stall our defeat other than for Democrats to gain political advantage in the next election. If you CAN offer a legitimate alternative explanation, I’d love to hear it.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
I have to say that HA has incredible telepathic powers to figure out what the Democrats plan to do with this mess in Iraq.
For starters, who told you that the elections was an “acceptance of defeat” on the part of the American people? Could it possibly be a feeling of revulsion against gross incompetence?
More and more Americans were actually more fed up with the incompetence with which this war has been waged, the absolute failure of the Iraqi leadership and Bush’s failure to hold the Iraqi pols to account. What is happening today is sectarian bloodshed with interference from terrorists from all over the ME.
If there is no WMD, why should the US troops be in Iraq caught in the civil war between two warring groups? This is a legitimate question.
A.We could either say that we are staying here because we were responsible for starting this mess in the first place and there fore we clean it up.
B.Or, we could admit that pulling out immediately or in 08 or when ever without having restored order in Iraq is at least a semi defeat.
Option A is the better one but it is also the toughest – with out the co-operation of Iraqi’s it is not going to happen. From what we have seen their political leadership has failed even worse than Bush, if thats even possible. How do we get the Iraqi pols to start governin ? Actually we cant – since we have to “stay the course”
Option B is bad but it looks like the most likely thing to happen, thanks to the competency level of the Bush Administration.
Why are you blaming the opposition party when you dont have the guts to say that this was a mess ENTIRELY created by the GOP? Hmm… may be you are feeling guilty ?
HA, why dont you petition your Congressman to ask for troop withdrawal since you claim that this is what Americans want. Posting to blogs which your Congressman does not read is not helping.
HA, people like you are the reason the GOP lost its bearings.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
You can thank BushCo – who’ve pretty much broken our military by going clueless into Iraq – for the half-assed, increasingly FUBAR state of our “limited war” in Afghanistan. If your big argument for a swelling of “pro-Iraq war” ranks among the American people at this late date is that most of the GOP voters crossed over in Connecticut to support Lieberman, you’re pretty much living in your own Lost World.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Great post, thanks for the info
March 25th, 2009 at 7:22 am
I dont usually comment, but after reading through so much info I had to say thanks
March 25th, 2009 at 7:35 am
This is right here, in the present, not the future.