Washington Daze
I’ve spent the last few days in Washington DC and blog this to you from a class D bar in the pleistocene-era Dulles airport — a true national embarrassment (more on that later).
Saturday was spent on the National Mall, observing the huge crowd at the Vietnam War memorial. Lots of somber, sad faces. Lots of people – young and old, black and white — with tears in their eyes as they strolled quietly away from the long, black wall.
Walking down Constitution, you also pass the memorials to the Korean War and WWII. No official monument yet, of course, for the war in Iraq. But we all know it is coming. First we will have the predictable and self-indulgent collective soul searching of how we went wrong. Then some sort of a design competition and a national “debate” as to whether the new monument should be one of celebration or mourning or some combination of the two.
Not yet, however, as the bloodletting is still going on. For the moment, at least on this past weekend, the only monument to the war in Iraq was a transitory one. Military Families Speak Out staked out a plot of the mall just below the Washington Monument and planted 2844 small American flags in the ground — each with a yellow ribbon and a name tag for every American solider so far killed in Iraq.
The tourists and the gawkers and the other vets and their families seemed respectful enough. They took pictures of the sea of flags and many stopped to chat with the 30 or so MFSO members who had come to Washington for Veterans Day.
I spent most of Saturday myself with the MFSO activists. They are parents, mostly my age or younger, of children roughly the same age as my own 22 year old. Some had already lost their child in George W. Bush’s main mission. For them, every day is an eternity, trying to make any sense whatsoever of their loss. For other parents whose sons and daughters still serve, time is equally brutal. They told me of the hours spent everyday in front of the computer screen scanning for tidbits of news from Anbar, Baghdad or wherever they think their child is currently stationed. They spoke of their nightly fears, the apprehension felt when there’s a knock on the door or the ring of a phone.
Their denamd is a simple one. Bring the troops, bring their children, home now. No hearings, no commissions, no coming up with plans, no bi-partisan pattycake. Just send a fleet of boats, planes and choppers and get their kids out of Iraq before they are killed or maimed.
It’s a pretty damn compelling argument. Forceful enough that I would not be able to look any of these terrified and angry parents in the eye and dare to offer them some mediated argument about geopolitics, foreign policy or elaborate exit strategies.
That’s not the case, it seems, with the moral geldings of the Democratic Party. I read reports like this one and I wonder from whicj gaping orifice did Carl Levin pull the number of “4-6 months” to begin a “phased redeployment?” Is that what Levin’s position would be if his own kid was hiding behind a wall in some bloody Baghdad alley? What is the difference, Senator Levin, between one moth, four or eleven?
Yeah, of course, his position and that of similar Democrats is –as they say– “better” than that of the White House. But the American soldiers who will be killed in Iraq over those 4-6 months, and over the following 12, 18, 24 or 48 months of phases two, three, four or five of whatever plan Levin is suggesting are going to be just as dead as they would be if we simply “stayed the course.”
Either there are or are not legitimate reasons for Americans to continue contributing the lives of their children to Iraq. If not, as it so clearly seems, then let’s cut out the mealy-mouthedness about phases, timetables, waiting periods and other forms of self-manipulation and intellectual insult. If the right thing to do is to start pulling out troops in February, then let us intead begin tomorrow. And for those I spoke to this weekend, even that is not soon enough.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
With all due respect.
Strategy?
Or feeling?
November 12th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Finally, Marc Cooper finds an element of the antiwar movement that he can respect….MFSO are VERY effective. As I’ve maintained in the face of the notion of ultra sects “controlling” the movement, these are the folks who are the heart and muscle.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Ahem…. since we’re talking in MORAL terms, perhaps a WORD about who is doing the LION’s share of dying, IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. Come’on Mark, throw the Iraqis a bone, you can still blame it on the Dems!
November 12th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
I have to say that I have been coming to this conclusion myself recently. Those who argue for phased withdrawal on the grounds that otherwise there would be a bloodbath and civil war have got to tell us exactly what a diminishing number of US troops would do to stop either, and what they are doing now to stop it. Very little it seems to me. If so, then US soldiers are going to continue to die so that the Republicans can save face and the Democrats don’t get branded as wimps. If so, that is totally rephrehensible.
Wall, you are getting boring. Or I should say more boring than ever.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:09 am
I’ll state for the record that, while “immediate withdrawal” is a perfectly logical slogan for an anti-war group, an actual “immediate withdrawal” from Iraq lies somewhere between impossible (literally) and wildly irresponsible. I support setting a timetable for withdrawal ASAP, but to do it without attempting to exert some kind of terms on the situation as we leave, even if it’s ultimately unsuccessful, is wrong – nor is it what most Americans want to see in the wake of the election.
That said, I’ve also come to the conclusion that the Baker Commission is going to turn out to be a bust as an easy out. I’m afraid that their negotiations in the Beltway will fail before any negotiations even begin to take place regionally. Bush probably doesn’t want to change course in any substantive sense – such as in the direction of the kind of regional diplomacy that Biden is currently suggesting – and too many Democrats will be wanting to use Baker as a shield.
I am totally open to some strategic thinking as regards Iraq and the region that is bold enough to move things significantly on parallel fronts. Far preferable to simply turning the Iraq policy over to the ministrations of Cindy Sheehan now that Rumsfeld’s out. But Bush is probably still able to subvert any more strategic approach and well may.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:27 am
I don’t think that simply “diminishing the number of troops” will stop the civil war…but I think there MAY be ways in which we could use whatever existing leverage we’ve got to pull together some regional players and do some “meta-diplomacy” that also MIGHT serve us well on a range of issues. This would require some pretty sharp, experienced players. Anthony Zinni comes to mind as one…
I’m not an expert on the region or on diplomacy and I’m not holding my breath. My assumption is that Bush will essentially force the U.S. into a posture of humiliation and defeat – that “Daddy’s Boys” won’t be able to pull off an extremely difficult feat under the best of circumstances, nor do “the Democrats” constitute an entity that will simply be able to control the policy according to their own plan.
Given the way things happen in the Beltway, and with a new Congress two months from even being installed, I can guarantee you that if Carl Levin is able to get a phased withdrawal rolling in four to six months and/or Biden is able to push some significant, broad diplomacy inititiative onto the table in the near future to deal with actually stabilizing the region, the American public won’t be treating them contemptuously, unlike our host.
Pelosi is pushing to make Jack Murtha – who shifted the terms of the debate on Iraq coming out of DC more than any other Beltway figure – the new majority leader (over disgusting uberhack Stenny Hoyer) and we’re treated to talk of “moral geldings” just days after the election. There’s something more than a bit pathological in the Dem baiting here, IMHO.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:34 am
There is an awful lot of focus being put on the Baker commission by all sides, as if it somehow has the magic key. That could be a lot of wishful thinking, as others here have pointed out. And by the way, involving other so-called regional players such as Syria and Iran would mean granting them considerable influence in Iraq’s affairs, they are not going to get the US out of this mess for free. That’s what happens when you send a herd of bulls into a Pottery Barn.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Anti-war Lamont lost, pro-war Lieberman won.
Many of the generals who were against Rummy wanted … more troops.
Many still want … more troops. To win.
Every parent who loses a child has a right to mourn — but parents whose children are now adults, and quite likely disagree with the parents about the morality and usefulness of their own pro-war efforts, such parents are dishonoring these young adult choices when they say their children’s choice was wrong.
Parents don’t own their children — not for deciding about whether to be sexual promiscuous (Leftists are pro-choice!) nor about whether to be patriotic and pro-democracy.
Compare democracy progress in Iraq with Darfur, and most pro-democracy folk would say there’s more progress in Iraq.
The Baker report is prolly gonna say the US troops should stay, but do less patrolling and more training / embedding with Iraqi troops.
Anybody willing to have the US troops come home now, yet is criticizing the Shia death squads, is hypocritical. Many Shia are ready to rule the Sunni, and kill those disagree. As long as some Sunni keep supporting some terror bombings against Shia, without getting any punishment, many Shia will support the death squads.
Death squad justice is better than none.
The US troops need to stay to help the pro-democracy forces punish the terrorists enough so that not just most, but the overwhelming vast super-majority (over 95? over 98%?) prefer Iraqi gov’t justice to death squad justice.
But the US should send none but volunteers to do such training work.
Anit-war parents opposed to the pro-war choices of the children should get not much more respect than the anti-sex parents who reject their daughters having sex and getting abortions.
Marc, do you feel the same way about policemen getting killed in America fighting drug gangs? About 57 died from gunfire in 2004, perhaps 1500 or so in the last 30 years. (I think drugs should be legalized to stop the killings.)
Every year some 15 000 young people die in car crashes.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:34 am
First off, let me repeat once again that I do not make-up Wall’s postings. If I were to invent an adversary for the sake of spicing up the blog, I would do a better, more challenging job.
My, my Reg we are sensitive about those fighting Dems aren’t we?
Just to be crystal clear: ove rthe past couple of years I too have voiced my discomfort with an “out now” approach. But two riders are attached to that emotion: 1) The outbreak of what I consider to be a true civil war pretty much squashes any rationale to stay in order to guarantee some order and 2) I would be more willing to listen to “stay and wait it out” position than the emerging Dem position of beginning a withdrawl six months from now. Either one thinks we need US troops in Iraq or we dont. If it is the latter, than just spit it out and say so. I cannot morally justify saying Im all for withdrawal… beginning in March.
We all know, or most of us know, that any withdrawal of 150,000 troops from a combat theatre is de facto “phased” and gradual. So of course no one over 18 or with an IQ above 81 believes we could or should snap our fingers and remove all troops at once. But I seen no reason not to begin the phase out immediately. What on earth is going to change 6 months from now?
All indications are, however, is that the opposite is going to happen at least in the short run. Looks like MORE troops are about to be deployed into Baghdad.
Anyway, I just think the cockamamie “redeployment” line is… cockamamie.
Ok back to the the very thick Mr. Wall. In fact, sir, Democrats ARE responsible for the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. At least the 22 Democratic Senator and five dozen Democratic House members who handed Bush a blank check 4 yrs ago are. tale your complaints to them, not to me. I opposed the war, unlike your Party comrades in the US congress.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:31 am
Marc, it is the Muslim murderers, in both bomb squads and death squads, that are responsible for most of the thousands of Iraqi deaths.
It is the Leftists who want to make powerful but not all-powerful America the only responsible actor in the world who are confusing this issue.
Don’t worry, “everybody’s” gonna win soon: MORE troops into Baghdad (so the “more troops” folk win), plus more Iraqi troops + more training, plus in some 3 – 6 months of Baghdad violence suppression and a declaration of (enough) “victory” so the Iraqi gov’t will invite us to reduce troop levels. And we start leaving then.
To keep claiming “nothing is gonna change” in 6 months is really juvenile. Training Iraqis takes time. It was terrible that a good training program was started so late (Rummy said it was illegal for the DoD to do so under prior budget rules, didn’t you see that in his Kansas speech?). But it’s been going, and will keep going.
Inside Iraq, the Iraqi politicians need to “win” — and they will, thru more troops temporarily, and more Iraqi troops actively pacifying areas.
For the last two years, getting Iraqis trained couldn’t happen much faster (Bush gets first year F on training; second and third year B.)
November 13th, 2006 at 6:05 am
“Death squad justice is better than none.”
Tom Grey’s “best” post yet. He and Pol Pot finally agree on something.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Well, nice I could squeeze that manipulation out of you. Yes, I remember that disent for the war tucked unabtrusively in their between fawing intervews with Hitchens, attacts on his debate opponants, and critiques of the Peace movent. Since you seem only capable of seeing the Iraq disaster in terms of it’s effects of American servicemen, at the same time waving your “morality” at the Dems, I guess we can count on your basic faliure to “take it up” with the Republicans, in any meaningful sense of the term.
Balter, you are always bored with what you can’t answer, I suppose. The basic moral rot covering this, the most grotesque “gotcha” post ever, is thick. You’re approval of it makes you something worse than a bore.
Reg, it’s pathological and the sad, pityable element in today’s shameful post. Maybe our host would like to explain just how the Dems are to start controling Congress before they are even sworn in. You can be sure that if a full withdrawl was compleated yesterday, the blame for any ill effects on Iraq would be the topic of today’s post.
There’s always been a bullying “with us (me) or against us” in the rights war; Cooper has learned well from his masters.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:41 am
The Democrats win big emphasizing a variety of “course changes”, mostly phased withdrawal and timetables that, compared to “stay the course”, move quickly to hand Iraq over to the Iraqis after a long, failed occupation; Pelosi’s pushing the Dems to choose the guy who’s been advocating immediate redeployment of U.S. troops out of the civil war combat zones as their majority leader in the House; leading Democrats in the Senate are calling for phased withdrawal/timetables to force Iraqis to take responsibility for security (which, yes, may be a chimera), and apparently Marc’s angry that the Dems didn”t get together and hold a press conference over the weekend announcing that they will cut off all funding to the troops in Iraq the first day of their taking their oaths – with no regrets, no looking back, no diplomacy, no attempts to exert any leverage in any direction. Great plan, Marc. That’ll certainly unite the American people around the new leadership and guarantee a swift burial for this Iraq issue. Best strategic thinking since urging liberals to vote for Nader.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:52 am
We might also note, the total absence of the Iraq people in this post about what to do with their country strongly suggests what might be called “the Hitchens fallback.” As in:” Well, that country was all screwed up in the first place, bound to come to this anyway, we gave it a shot. They’re on their own.” If that is the posisition our host is taking, it’s a point he should be crystal clear on.
A few reminders on his obvious smudges: There was no formal decloration of war against Iraq, so nobody in congress voted for it. The Dems did vote, in a time of political pressure our radical journalists did little to mitagate, to strengthen Bush’s hand at the U.N. Of course, not all in the party went that even that far; and many or most recanted from the vote soon enough.
Unless you walking around in your own reality deprevation tank; of course, you know that the Invasion of Iraq was the political capital spent by George W. Bush, the man who cheered on the Vietnam Vets in his flight suit on the Campus of Harvard Buisness school and brought back Henry Kissinger to fight another day. But we shouldn’t bring all that up here; our host doesn’t even want to set the record stright on Swift Boats or Jane Fonda.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:20 am
No, Wall, what’s boring is your obsession with what Marc Cooper does and does not think about any particular issue. Marc is a good friend of mine and so I am interested in what he thinks, but I don’t lose too much sleep about it, even if I disagree which I sometimes do. But your game is to dredge up and usually distort, sometimes amazingly dishonestly, something that Marc said in the past–for example your continual claims that he supported the war in Iraq, which he did not. It becomes tedious after a while. So does the constant kvetching about Hitchens. If he is a right winger now, and I agree that he is, so what? Get on with your life.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:32 am
“I too have voiced my discomfort with an “out now†approach.”
Marc – You did more than voice discomfort; you voiced disdain for anyone who contemplated the idea, branding them utterly naive and unserious. While waiting 4-6 months to withdraw is far from ideal, actually getting it started in that time frame would represent an accomplishment. I’ve heard certain Drems mention immediate withdrawal and others take something like Levin’s approach. His timeframe may be based on a defensible political calculus — which approach actually has a chance of gaining acceptance and working in this tainted world.
While some of the Dems were complicit in the Iraq fiasco ( many honestly and some out political cravenness), you know as well as Wall that this would never have occurred if the insufficiently perfect Al Gore had been elected.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Hi -
At the risk of being soundly thrashed here for having the temerity to dissent from your mainstream, might I make one single point?
The soldiers aren’t children.
They are adults and have volunteered for what they are doing. No one is drafted, no father or mother is “sending their children there”.
Having almost-adult children of my own, I can understand the anguish some might have. But there are no children involved, no children in the evocative, emotional sense that is clearly expressed here.
None.
Why make it sound like people are childish to have made a decision to serve their country?
John
November 13th, 2006 at 8:58 am
amzingly dishonestly? Examples please. As stated above, my well supported contention is that Cooper is a lot more bent out of shape at every perceived (and sometimes real) misstep of the Dems then the damage doers on the other side. This, I think, is a by understandable but now rediculous by product of Vietnam. My posisition, in case you missed it; is that Cooper’s chidings of the right are wet noodle and all his real passion (bile) is reserved for the Dems, That’s why, for instance, Lindsey Graham rates higher on this blog these days than Jack Murtha. Is that an unfair? The result being a thinking man’s Alan Combs.
I don’t see a hell of a lot of variance in Cooper’s mantras, maybe he should get on with his life and give someone else his space in The Nation and the Weekly? I believe the reason this country tends to test further to the right than it actually is has to do with the Media. If we have to keep one scribe honest at a time, so be it.
I’d also note, I could shut up at lot easier if the (comparatively) well heeled yackers and writers of the left media took on some of this themselves.
“My next guest is Molly Ivans, She’s here to discuss her cowardly defence of the slimeball Dems, Molly, when did you first relize you didn’t have a clue?”
“I’m Marc Cooper, up next is Eric Alterman, one of the willing liars for Bill Clinton. Eric, in your Bush hatred, don’t you think you are blind to fact that Ted Kennedy didn’t really vote against Bush, even though he did?”
We now turn to Joe Conason, who wrote some of the most scathing and unfair attacks on the obviously honerable Kathline Willey. Joe, how can we not see your crude attacks on Bush in the context of your degradation of Ken Starr?”
“Eric Boehlert, your work has painstakingly illustrated the core lies and distortions of the right. I guess my only question would be, how dare you?”
There is almost zero substantive debate between the moderate left and the progressive left, I’ve got a feeling once your in the club you don’t risk offending anyone with their own inconsistencies. MUST we play nice on blogs as well?
November 13th, 2006 at 8:59 am
“While some of the Dems were complicit in the Iraq fiasco ( many honestly and some out political cravenness), you know as well as Wall that this would never have occurred if the insufficiently perfect Al Gore had been elected.”
More fundamentally, this would not have happened if Gore had been a more inspiring candidate with a clear message, or if the Democrats had nominated someone who was–in which case they would have had a much better chance of winning. This is the truth that all the Nader-bashing was and is designed to obfuscate, then and now. And until our worthy commentators here have learned that lesson, they will be doomed to repeat it, maybe even in 2008.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:09 am
“Why make it sound like people are childish to have made a decision to serve their country?”
Nobody is saying that, or anything remotely like that. We’re saying instead that Bush was less than fully adult in the care he took with the soldiers’ lives under his command.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Hmmm…
Gore/LIEBERMAN would have been a peaceful, no-war-on-Iraq presidency. Lieberman really would have been diplomatic, and Gore – a hawk until recently- would have kept civil liberties safe despite his support for Clinton’s “Anti-Terrorism/Effective Death Penalty” act (or whatever the hell its called.) Makes a lot of sense. I can just see Lieberman calling for diplomacy. Yup, makes a lot of sense.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:11 am
GORE/Lieberman would not have invaded Iraq, though some on the right would have tried to bait them into it. Even amongst many Repubs the Iraq invasion was no foregone conclusion in the aftermath of 9/11. Pushed by the neocon wonkworld, it only became broadly popular on the right when it looked briefly like a cakewalk and Bush could be portrayed in terms usually reserved for Jesus or Churchill. Of course it was also recognized as an effective cudgel to use on Democrats and that made it fun.
GORE/Lieberman would have been surrounded by a different set of advisors (none to your liking, but discernibly different from the Bush gang) and answerable to a different political constituency. They would have invaded Afghanistan, said harsh things (appropriately) about political Islam and supported better intelligence gathering and undercover ops. It’s quite possible that a Republican president other than Bush would have followed this same path. It took a very special cast of characters working around the clock with a near-flawless dysfunctional flair to pull off the Iraq fiasco; it was a perfect storm.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:20 am
San Francisco Values:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011073.php
November 13th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I guess Jcummings missed Gore’s speech in Sept 2002 when he laid out the reasons for NOT going to war in Iraq and predicting, accurately, the dismal results if we did. And last I heard VPs only got as much influence as Presidents wanted to give them so Lieberman’s rants are irrelevant since Gore, unlike the current occupant of the WH, can think for himself.
Marc is confusing. He has spent the last two years chiding A.N.S.W.E.R. for wanting out tomorrow and now he wants the dems to do it.
(BTW Marc, how do the Dems do it before January?)
I agree with Reg (surprise!) that the idea that the party would commit hari kari by cutting funds off on day one – inviting a veto anyway – is a nonstarter. And “Immediate” withdrawal is a physical impossibility anyway. Murtha said six months, Levin is talking about a year. Those are realistic timeframes and something like that will happen if Bush doesn’t dig in his heels and refuse the lifevest that daddy is sending him via Baker-Hamiliton that will include some phased withdrawal. I hope Reg is wrong but given the petulance of 43 – which surely won’t be lessened by this week’s NEWSWEEK cover – it is a real possibility. It must be galling to be 60 years old and still being in a Warren Zevon song: “Dad, get me out of this!”
And then what Marc? Impeachment? Siccing Ralph Nader on him? Instant Runoff Voting?
I said it before. If the Democrats could walk on water Marc would complain that they couln’t swim.
Oh well, I’m sure Chris Hitchens and Victor Davis Hanson have the answer. Or Norm Geras.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:25 am
I have to chime in here regarding Wall’s comments. Balter, you may want a love-in comment box, but I value Wall’s critiques, and he’s correct in challenging Marc on his often double-standard ripping of Dems and/or antiwar types (sometimes in the same breath). I don’t have the energy to comb the archives, but I am pretty sure I remember ample ridicule of “out now” demands of the antiwar crowd, trotting out claims that this would be irresponsible and hardly could constitute a realistic plan for Iraq. Well, it’s many months later, and apparently now it’s time for “out now”? Perhaps, but then it’s also time to answer your critics for your view change–particularly when you change course to one which you have previously ridiculed.
You can chastise the Lieberman/Hillary Dems for the stay longer/increase troops option, and you can chastise the Murtha/Kos Dems for wanting (consistently) to begin evacuation now, but you can’t do both out of both sides of your mouth. (Of course, the want-it-both-ways Kerry (and perhaps Hillary) Dems deserve ample criticism for just that reason).
November 13th, 2006 at 11:02 am
My 25-year-old daughter happened to be in Washington on business over the weekend, and went to the Mall on Saturday. She called me from the Vietnam memorial, in tears, to tell me it is the saddest place she has ever been. I’m a Vietnam-era vet, and I could only agree.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:03 am
I’m with Reg and Evets on this one. I don’t see how you can give the Dem such a hard time after three days when they are clearly looking to push for withdrawal. The American political system, especially under mixed rule, slows things down. I’m endlessly sympathetic for the parents and soldiers themselves who want out (remember, soldiers can’t leave. They agreed to serve they’re country, but some may not be glad they’re serving in this war.), but these things do take time. Let’s be glad that we’re finally going in the right direction.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-usiraq13nov13,0,6032008.story?coll=la-home-headlines
November 13th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Anti-war Lamont lost, pro-war Lieberman won.
Dilettanish post-hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense:
Dig a little deepr next time.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:31 am
“it’s also time to answer your critics for your view change–particularly when you change course to one which you have previously ridiculed.”
Marc did explain why he changed his mind, though he downplayed the intensity of his prior ridicule.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Re Reg’s last entry. I suppose Nancy Pelosi’s call for Murtha to be new Majority Leader is a bad idea since Jack is pro-military and likes pork as well (see TPM Muckraker). But then I agree with Arianna that without Murtha the Dems might still be looking for a Minority Leader.
Sounds to me like Dems want out in as swift a manner as possible.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:41 am
And let me add that I’m sorry to hear about Dulles. When it opened it was hailed as the first “Jet Age” Airport. If it is not so hot now maybe it is just another example of aging infrastructure..
November 13th, 2006 at 11:48 am
marc,
put the kool aid down. when pelosi and crew get done with you, you’ll die of a broken heart. this is a repeat but it bears repeating:
“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–baker commission?– 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 a few days ago 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 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am
How many times do I have to say – post 2000 Gore is a different animal. I was referring to hawkish pre-election-theft, AIPAC favorite, Marty Peretz protege, Occidental Petroleum pimping Gore. Gore seems to have rehabilitated at least part of that, but its absolutely absurd to think that ANYTHING would have been different with them in power.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Well Neid, I’m sure John Conyers, for one, will apprecaite your pigon holing him as a shuffling Uncle Tom.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
conyers et al know all about uncle toms–i beleive that’s what they have on occassion called colin, steele, condi, and sowell to name a few. in fact having read your posts in the past i’m not surprised by your quick use of race baiting………. i’m surprised you refrained from using the N word. only you could treat the hired help as “shuffling uncle toms”. me, i treat them as overpaid………
November 13th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Really, love to see the quotes on Conyers, but now that I can see where YOUR coming from, I know you’re not about making up the occasional fact or nine or ten…….
November 13th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
jcummings, it’s absurd to claim you know how he would have responded to 9/11. People had all sorts of unpredictable reactions, and while Gore was no peacenik who might have supported the Iraq war as a senator, there’s little reason to believe anyone who wasn’t close to the neocons would have pursued the invasion of Iraq. As many of us argued at the time, it wasn’t just morally wrong, it made absolutely no sense. With some exceptions, Democrats went along not out of a sense that invading was necessary, but out of cowardice. I just don’t think the same dynamics would have been in play under a Democratic president.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
There was a discussion of the time frame for withdrawal on this blog about a year ago. Those who argued for withdrawal w/in 6 months were branded as selling out or not serious about ending the war. But here we are, 6 months further from than date, and no withdrawal. Believe me, if the parties could agree to begin significant, real withdrawal in 4 months or even 6, it would be a good thing for the American people, and perhaps the people of Iraq. It does no good to threaten to hold out a year for immediate withdrawal.
I agree with reg that this was American Dad’s greatest effort…for the first time, I believe, we get an insight into his view of his relationship with and thoughts about American Daughters.
Among American Dad’s other observations is the one noted by other responders, the Instant Wisdom that 11/7/06 was not an antiwar vote because Lieberman beat Lamont. It really is nonsense. Not only did Lieberman run an “antiwar” campaign, it is also true that no campaign is ever truly and exclusively single-issue. 80% of voting Repubs voted for Lieberman because their own guy was off-the-charts unacceptable. All Lieberman had to do was to hold some of his primary votes, many of whom had supported him for decades and could remember when he was a liberal. He did so. That election was so screwy that it cannot be used to prove anything.
Btw, it appears he is starting to flirt with the Repubs, despite his promises to caucus with the Dems. He is going to get some very attractive offers from the Repubs, and no doubt will demand a pretty tribute from the Dems to stay.
Finally, I think we have the administration’s first symbolic rhetorical redeployment on the Iraq issue today. After meeting with the Iraq Study Commission, the word of the day was “success.” As in, we are working for success in Iraq. Bush used this word where he would normally say “victory.” I take this to mean that they are at least trial ballooning the concept that “victory” is no longer seen as a realistic alternative, or perhaps even a definable one (as many of us have been pointing out and has been recognized by the establishment). Altho it’s only a word, this does indicate that Bush may be at least dipping his foot in the waters of reality, which might be a first step in the direction out of Iraq.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
The time for withdrawal was on the night of October 6, 1945.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
A case can be made for a gradual withdrawal only if the Baker-Hamilton commission pushes for a diplomatic solution and time is needed to effect this. The political pressures would be too overwhelming for Bush to refuse to sit down with Iran if this is the recommendation. Moreover, this could open the gates to a much more comprehensive Middle East resolution at the insistence of Iran and Syria and Tony Blair, who wants this more than anything, involving the nuclear disarmament of the region and major steps in the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Maybe I’m optimistic, but this could be something that softens the pain of these families’ loss.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
I actually believe America’s got a real window of opportunity to implement what Marc Davidson said above…esp. with both Iran and Israel disarming – and expect more resistance to the idea from the latter than the former. The only difference I have with that idea – which is basically what’s being put forward – is the graduality of ending the occupation. I think fears could be allayed by asking Syria to lead an Arab League stabliizing force…
November 13th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“How many times do I have to say – post 2000 Gore is a different animal. ”
Post-2000 Lieberman is also a different animal. Pre-2000 they were both moderate to slightly hawkish Dems. Gore in fact never really seemd to have his heart in the role, but played along when necessary. Neither was champing at the bit to project U.S. power and beat righteousness into the world at the butt of a gun. Listen to Mavis, jcummings; she speaks the truth.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
How about this JCummings. Gore pre 2000 or post 2000 would have listened to Sandy Berger and Dick Clarke and heeded the warning that Osama Bin Laden was a threat. He sure wouldn’t have waited till August 2001 to get a memo saying “OBL Determined to Attack US.” And he wouldn’t have taken a month long vacation on his farm in TN. So maybe those memos from field FBI agents in MN and Phoenix would have been acted upon. And those buildings would still be there.
Just a thought. . .
November 13th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
RLC – perhaps you are right on that.
I’m agnostic about that issue. I do think people make too much of a hero of Dick Clarke, who was a champion of the early version of “extraordinary rendition.”
Oh, to have liberals tell me they know better, even more “the truth”… Do you believe in private ownership? I don’t.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
No war but class war.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Levin might have been pulling “4 to 6 months” out of his butt, but what’s new about politicians pulling statements out of their butts?
It has its advantages, politically. It sounds precise (absurdly so to me, but do I count?), and drily factual, but also flexible. “Out Now!” is cant, an absolutist slogan, and maybe Levin doesn’t want to be associated with it. How things sound matters in politics, doesn’t it? Thus “redeployment”, rather than “withdrawal from combat zones”, on the Dem side. Thus “success” substituting for “victory” on the White House side.
Is there a case for gradualism anyway? I think so. Phased withdrawal isn’t just a logistical necessity. It also offers political opportunities. If you go more slowly, you can watch for effects, and respond.
Here’s an example: Sunnis are starting to worry that they’ll be swamped by Shi’ites. When our Ambassador to Iraq talks to the insurgents (and yes, he does, even though supposedly “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”), they say they won’t go after Al Qaeda as long as Al Qaeda is a thorn in the side of the occupying troops. If Sunni insurgents start getting really worried about being overwhelmed, however, some room for negotiation opens up: those insurgents can be told “Clean out Al Qaeda in your areas, and you’ll get more security guarantees from us”. Obviously, they’d respond: “How can we trust you?” And our response can be: “Try it, here and there, and watch what we do–or what we don’t do, in the case of areas you’d like to control, unmolested by our troops, not facing harassment from the air.” But unless there’s time for all sides to observe cause and effect, and build even some tiny amount of trust (or at least some sense of how players will reliably behave), that sort of negotiation is impossible. With enough time, the negotiation need not even be verbal–action, or inaction, can speak louder anyway.
Every day we hear more about the U.S. possbly talking with Syria and Iran, about giving them some role in stabilizing Iraq. There are plenty of other players, large and small, inside Iraq and outside. It’s very complex, everybody wants different things. Going slow opens up opportunities for players to make moves, watch for responses, make counter-moves, negotiate, and move again.
I don’t know what Iraq is going to look like a year from now. But I suspect that none of these other players do either. Nobody is going to surrender any possible leverage over the situation any sooner than they see what surrendering gets them, until they have TIME to see what it might get them.
You may argue that these players are mostly intransigent. Here is something you can’t deny, however. The U.S., with its overwhelming technological superiority in arms, is still the 800-lb gorilla in this situation. IEDs and suicide-bomber dynamite vests are lethal, but they can’t hold a candle to daisy-cutter bombs and cruise missiles. Everybody there knows it. At this point, how could they not? Thus, they also know that a sudden end to U.S. military engagement in Iraq is not just the end of U.S. use of high explosive force (directly or latently), but also a de facto use of *implosive* forces: instant disengagement would instantly create many power vacuums in many locales in Iraq. And we all know that power abhors a vacuum. Just the information about *when* it will happen in a particular locale has huge trade value in negotiations. But if you create all those power vacuums, suddenly, at an unpredicted moment, at the same time, that trade value is squandered.
As we pull out (IF we pull out) the balance of forces within the country will start changing. It’s changing even now. The mortar has grown in popularity in Iraq just over the last few months. Presumably the complex tactical coordination that make mortars more than just another way to deliver terror is developing in the insurgent ranks (whereever the knowledge is not already intact, in the minds of seasoned Iraqi ex-offices aligned with the insurgency). What do we do as the artillery gets progressively heavier? The current retail ethnic cleansing may soon give way to wholesale ethnic cleansing. What part do U.S. forces play in limiting that? Or would you argue that we shouldn’t even try?
But yes, it is possible: we could just turn away, start driving out, with all deliberate speed. Don’t look back, though–you might turn into a pillar of salt.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:24 am
The only difference between Murtha and Levin is whether we are defeated or defeated slowly. The only thing that could be accomplished during Levin’s additional 4-6 months is getting more Americans killed for no reason except to cover the Democrat’s political asses.
The Democrats have a moral obligation to state their intentions on the war. If their intention is a defeat of choice, then let’s get it over with.
November 14th, 2006 at 5:14 am
On more thing. The Democrats have a duty to tell America what the consequences of their defeat of choice in Iraq will be.
It will, of course, be catastrophic. But they won’t tell us that.
November 14th, 2006 at 5:58 am
This war will always be remembered as Bush’s defeat…and of course the consequences are catastrophic. Sorry pal.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:02 am
Ha, as opposed to the conseqences of the invasion? But thanks to you and Turner for at least adding the Iraqis to the mix here.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:57 am
“But thanks to you and Turner for at least adding the Iraqis to the mix here.”
It’s hard to not keep them in mind, from my point of view. When people say “leave the Iraqis to sort it out on their own”, or even “if the Iraqis can’t govern themselves, then they’ll get what they deserve”, I have to wonder if they realize about a third of Iraqis are under 15 years old. What did *they* do to deserve this? They didn’t deserve Saddam, but things are arguably worse now, by several important measures. A full-blown civil war would be *much* worse.
This was always a big worry for me about this war–that the American people would sicken of it, and push for withdrawal at precisely the worst point for Iraqis. Shame on Bush & Co for getting us into it, of course. And yes, if in fact there’s nothing we can do there now or in the foreseeable future that won’t just make it worse, then pulling out is the least bad of the bad options. Just as leaving Saddam in power was probably the least bad of some bad options.
Today I read that, as the wagons circle in the Iraqi “government”, Moqtada al Sadr is increasingly on the inside–but militias previously loyal to him are spinning off. Today I read that a convoy of forty official-looking vehicles passed many police checkpoints on the way to an Education Ministry building, men in police uniforms got out there, rounded up some staff, picked out the ones whose ID cards revealed they were Sunnis, and drove off with them. Dozens of them. Kidnapped. In broad daylight. Probably driving out past the same checkpoints. All while “real” police looked on–either satisfied to see them go, or fearful of involving themselves, or maybe both?
Give it time, says Tom Grey. But look what time has given us. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Whatever that will be, we can be sure it won’t be jubilant voters waving purple-stained thumbs. More likely, mass graves with *fresh* bodies.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:47 am
In the July/August Foreign Affairs, a truly depressing roundtable discussion:
http://tinyurl.com/ym2uts
Chaim Kaufman’s contribution contained the following:
“… the United States will remain the strongest military force in Iraq. As such, it will have one remaining duty: the moral obligation to minimize the damage, human and otherwise, caused by ethnic cleansing. This is also a U.S. national security interest: the U.S. government is — and will continue to be — blamed by most of the world for all of the harm that befalls the people of Iraq. The shorter that bill of indictment, the better.”
Assuming Americans care, that is. I hope they do.
“Satisfying this obligation would mean using U.S. military strength to protect Iraqi refugees who wish to relocate.”
For “wish to relocate”, please read “don’t want to be martyrs, especially if it also means a likelihood of becoming torture victims as well.”
Continuing: “U.S. forces must defend the most vulnerable mixed towns and urban neighborhoods from both Sunni and Shiite attackers for long enough to organize transport for those who want to move to safer locations. Otherwise, who controls Baghdad and dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of towns in central Iraq will be determined by full-scale sectarian battles that could go on for months or even years.
“Which settlements need to be defended and which communities need to be evacuated are questions that would largely determine the location of the de facto line that would separate Sunni and Shiite communities. Protection and relocation would have to be coordinated with the strongest forces in Iraq, the main Shiite factions. These groups would not be enthusiastic: two of the main uia factions — the Dawa Party and the Sadrists — still want a unitary Iraq. But sober Shiite leaders would also realize that such a policy would save many Shiite lives and bring the Shiite-dominated government greater control over more settlements than it could manage otherwise.”
So far, so good. But … as with all participants in this roundtable, we soon run into an article of faith:
“Little active cooperation would be required; all that would be needed is enough forbearance on the part of the Shiite militias to let temporary defensive garrisons and evacuation convoys complete their tasks without having to fight. Washington would have to explain its intentions clearly and establish firm limits to its mission both in aim and in time. The tolerance of the Sunni militias would also be needed in areas under their control. But if U.S. forces were scheduled to depart shortly — leaving the affected settlements in Sunni hands — the Sunni militias would have little reason to oppose the evacuation of those Shiites who wished to go. So far, few groups have displayed such bloody-mindedness as to suggest that they would take the risk of attacking U.S. forces solely to murder refugees in flight. (Afterward, the number of minorities living on the wrong side of the separation line would be small, which would limit incentives for “rescue” offensives.)”
These rosy projections, based on scant and flimsy past experience, run headlong into a reality: on all sides, there are fracture lines, growing every day. The Sunni resistance is not united. Neither are the more radical Shi’ites, who have infiltrated the army and the police. And on our side, the priority is still “force protection”. If an evacuation mission comes under fire from some splinter militia or rogue Iraqi army unit, do the shepherded refugees get abandoned in the name of “force protection”? So much for good faith gestures. What if our soldiers stand and fight? They would win, perhaps, but besides taking more casualities (unpopular with voters), there could be political losses: What if U.S. troops are standing and fighting Iraqi troops they were training only a year ago? That would be a huge loss of face for any U.S. politician who signed up for “coordinated, negotiated, minimum-casualty please-don’t-call-it-ethnic-cleansing” (we can call it “redeployment of noncombatants”, I guess). And there would be an even bigger loss of face for those who pushed the as-Iraqi-stand-up refrain — after all, that they would stand up and starting shooting at *us* was never in *that* script. Those who pushed that line would rather turn away, and maybe direct some fire against Al Jazeerah filming crews to make sure nobody else in the world sees what’s going on either.
There’s a lot of “throw it all against the wall and see what sticks” in this roundtable discussion. (I recommend reading the whole thing.) If some of the smarter people weighing in on this subject sound this confused and uncertain, you have to wonder if the Baker-Hamilton commission is going to come up with anything coherent at all.
November 14th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Even though middle American, the votes that made the difference in the last election, were not voting for Nervous Nan-ney(she was rocking on the back porch at the time), she has now appeared in all her irresponsible liberal leftness to claim her mandate.
Look guys, let’s be realisitic. If you were an Iraqi inclined to support the elected gov’t there in the past, and the only power that could give it security a chance of succeeding has just had one of its nuts cut off by the US political process, and the second in line for Commander in Chief is a wild eyed San Francisco nut job that makes, as her first official statment on Iraq “It’s not a war that is not winable”, were would you now turn for your security? I thought so, so would I.
This is not the first experience the Iraqi people have had with US promises. The American people have spoken. The reasonable and peaceful Iraqi people have just gotten their brave purple finger shoved back in their eye. It’s over, the Rightwing nut jobs in Iran win, which is obviously better than the Rightwing nutjobs in America in the opinion of most Leftwing nutjobs.
Speaking of the job of Commander in Chief, I seriously fear for Bush’s life, due to the unreasonable hatred by some on the left and the advantages in would give socialists to have one as head of state.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:03 am
That would be “…could give it security and a chance…” and “It’s not a war that is winnable.”
Reg, this is not directed at you. You lean left, but haven’t fallen over into a nutjob, ie. socialist.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Damn, the would “..third in line for Commander…”. In a hurry as usual.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Not that I’m not interested in the fine discussion regarding Veterans Day, The National Mall and its memorials, and what’s next in Iraq, but Marc did began with:
I’ve spent the last few days in Washington DC and blog this to you from a class D bar in the pleistocene-era Dulles airport — a true national embarrassment (more on that later).
It is worthy of some typing time to make this public service annoncement; if you should be headed to D.C. or the nearby areas, by all means, do avoid Dulles (Dull-ass would be more like it). Dulles is inconviently located out in the boondocks. Supposedly if you’re smart enough to have credit cards and the ability to pass the TSA security, you should have no problem finding your luggage and the contecting trams or buses to D.C. Fat chance. The place is laid out like the parking lot from hell. The bastards who screwed up Kresge College at UCSC probably designed this place. It has the vastness-feeling of Atlanta and Houston and gives you the sad impression that you’ll answer no to the question, ‘are we there yet?’ And you’re not because its still another 25 miles through beltway traffic you’d rather not be in.
If you must fly to D.C., by all means use Reagan National. It’s very traveller friendly. First you’ll love the landing; the flight path (get the window seat) neatly glides in around the the Washington Monument sticking out like a giant bayonet. From there you can quickly spot all the all the familiar landmarks. Two terminals. About the size of Oakland. Luggage is much easier to find. The simple genius of this airport is that it is connected to the Metro subway line (for Californians, think BART). Unless you’re an expert, you’ll probably be at our stop in D.C. before you finish the crosswords.
So there’s my travel tip for you, dear brothers and sisters. Oh, the time, it is past noon now on the east coast…
November 14th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Jim R you were right the first time. Pelosi is 2nd in line. Chaney is First in line.
Since the polling data all suggest that the public wants out now and believes and wants the Dems to do it I’m afraid you’re SOL there. Will it be messy? Of Course! What do you expect from a crew of screwups led by a 60 year old man-child who has failed in everything he has ever tried and has had to be bailed out, time and time again, by daddy?
JCummings I don’t know what belief in private property has to do with combating Al Queda or the possibility that a Gore Administration would have acted on info to prevent 9/11 but I do believe that people should own their homes, farmers their land and so on. I also believe that certain enterprises – such as public utllities – should be collectively owned as should the mechanisms for financing schooling, health care and public transport. But why don’t we save a discussion of the public vs private realm for another time?
November 14th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I was being facetious….but one has to admit that the neoliberal phase of the now-global private property regime has given rise to terrorism, something most people don’t deny, if they can’t get out of the captialist framework.
November 16th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
>>It’s a pretty damn compelling argument. Forceful enough that I would not be able to look any of these terrified and angry parents in the eye and dare to offer them some mediated argument about geopolitics, foreign policy or elaborate exit strategies.
That’s not the case, it seems, with the moral geldings of the Democratic Party. I read reports like this one and I wonder from whicj gaping orifice did Carl Levin pull the number of “4-6 months” to begin a “phased redeployment?”
November 16th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Funny, I felt the same way about that compelling argument in 2005, and viewed Marc Cooper as a moral gelding.