« The Rick Santorums Ye Shall Always Have With You | Main | CSI: Baltimore »
October 29, 2006
Ask a Stupid Question...
Shakes here...
Here’s a question I’m so tired of hearing that each time a war supporter now utters it, I feel as though I may slip into a coma at any moment: “Do you want us to win in Iraq?”
In the past couple of days, Lynne Cheney has directed this question at Wolf Blitzer and Bill O’Reilly has directed it at David Letterman, two good little soldiers who have in their debate arsenals nothing but rejoinders issued straight from GOP Talking Points Headquarters. Any attempt to point out the question is ludicrous on its face is met with some variation on what O’Reilly lobbed back at Letterman: “It’s an easy question.” To his credit, Letterman didn’t back down, but instead replied, “It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.”
Amen, brother.
I despair that patriotism and pragmatism have become mutually exclusive. Before that “easy” question can be answered by anyone with two brain cells still knocking together, a few other question have to be answered, like What is the definition of winning? and Can we win it? and If so, how are we going to? You know, the kind of questions that certain people resistant to the hypnotic combination of flag-waving and fear-mongering were asking before the war, people who were dismissed as unpatriotic cuckoos. To continue to question whether a person with legitimate questions and concerns wants to win is to obfuscate the frustrating reality that those other questions still have not been answered, three years on.
The implication has been, since before we ever marched into Iraq, that people with “hard” questions never wanted us to win, and still don’t. But speaking as someone who has never viewed “Do you want us to win in Iraq?” a fair question under these circumstances, wanting us to win was never as important to me to understanding whether we could. I have never suffered from the misapprehension that my will and desire to win could magically overcome a lack of competence and ability to win. I never felt able to root for an illusion.
October 29, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
That question is about as relevant to the Iraq debate as asking someone "do you want to be as rich as Bill Gates?" is to...well...anything.
Posted by: Haggai | Oct 29, 2006 6:11:09 PM
Too bad they didn't ask Rummy that question when he was refusing plans for post-war Iraq.
Posted by: Fr33d0m | Oct 29, 2006 7:06:11 PM
Wouldn't "yes" be an acceptable answer?
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 29, 2006 7:18:51 PM
I think the left's best answer to this question is:
"Thanks to our brave men and women in uniform, we won the war in Iraq. Maybe you remember? It took about a month. The question isn't whether we can win the war. We won it. For some reason, the Bush administration decided our troops should stick around afterward to occupy it, and nobody can tell us why. So the real question is, what the hell are we still doing in Iraq? What are we waiting for?"
Posted by: AJ Signalstation | Oct 29, 2006 7:25:32 PM
"I want to open a travel agency where people can have cheap holidays in other countries simply by using magic flying carpets instead of jets to travel there and back."
"Are you sure those magic flying carpets actually work?"
"What's the matter - don't you think the average American DESERVES a cheap holiday? Are you some sort of anti-American Commie?"
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 29, 2006 9:17:20 PM
Do I want to win the war? Is the Pope Catholic? Does an eight year old girl want a pet unicorn?
Duh, of course I wanna win the war. But since I'm not an 8 year old girl, I think the relevant question is not so much what I want and instead, it's what I can realistically expect to get.
I findit endlessly hilarious that conservatives keep trying to talk about our feelings like that's what matters here. The important question before us isn't the one that's about our feelings--whether we really want to win the war or whether we really REALLY want to win the war. The relevant question is about if we CAN win the war, what the hell it's gonna take to win and what winning it would look like.
This conservative war strategy is like 8 year old girl logic: "oh, if I had really REALLY begged for that unicorn, daddy would have bought one for me!" Um, no, kiddo. You didn't miss out on the unicorn because you didn't want it enough
Same way that if we lose this war, it's not gonna be because we didn't want to win it enough.
Duh.
Posted by: theorajones | Oct 29, 2006 10:14:04 PM
The question illistrates the difference between the Bush haters and normal people.
The automatic reaction for normal/patriotic people is "of course". If America wins in Iraq (stabilizes the country, plants a self sustaining and functioning democracy), then it would be nothing but good for America and the world.
But that would be good for Bush too. Ohhhhhhhh....
For people like Dave and anyone else who has to think about it, why would anyone have to think about that question? Do you hate Bush so bad that you want to see America fail so that Bush fails? I think so.
Admit it, you hate Bush so bad that if it means America has to suffer a defeat, so be it.
Why else would anyone even have to think about the question "Do you want to win in Iraq"?
Even if you are thoughtful.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2006 10:36:36 PM
If someone asked you whether you wanted your country to win a war it was engaged in, why do you need a definition of "win"?
I think someone with with two brain cells would have the sense to know that "winning" would probably be the best option.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2006 10:59:26 PM
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2006 7:36:36 PM The automatic reaction for normal/patriotic people is "of course". If America wins in Iraq (stabilizes the country, plants a self sustaining and functioning democracy), then it would be nothing but good for America and the world.
The trick, of course, is in the tense. "Don't you want American to win the War in Vietnam? Its an easy question!"
Its a category mistake to ask whether you want something to happen in the future when the event has already happened. We won the war in Iraq. We lost the occupation. The only question remaining is how badly that loss is going to cost us.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 29, 2006 11:01:28 PM
Bruce,
We are still in Iraq, we haven't lost yet, although you want that to be true.
Thanks to people like you, you may get your wish.
Bruce, Do you want us to win the war/occupation in Iraq?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2006 11:05:04 PM
We are still in Iraq, we haven't lost yet, although you want that to be true.
So your definition of "winning" involves permanent occupation? Interesting...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 29, 2006 11:23:41 PM
"So your definition of "winning" involves permanent occupation? Interesting..."
Noooo, I was saying we haven't lost the war yet.
I would have been pretty offended if someone insinuated that I hated my president so bad that I was willing to watch my fellow countrymen die in order for that president to look bad. But no one seems offended. Interesting....
But then again, I instinctively would want my country to win a war we were engaged in. I wouldn't have to question the definition of 'win' or think about whether I wanted my country to win.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 29, 2006 11:41:13 PM
Having fun, are we, Toke ? Supporting a man ( not a God, really, honest ) who deliberately tells lies designed to scare the whee out of people so they'll approve going in to take out a fellow whose people have faced privation for years and whose military thought they might as well cave rather than support the jerk. Except it was "Mission Accomplished" a good long time ago and the natives are restless under the American yoke. Fancy that.
Posted by: opit | Oct 29, 2006 11:59:16 PM
Noooo, I was saying we haven't lost the war yet.
Toke, what happens if the US pulls out?
Answer: It all goes to shit.
What happens if the US stays for a while, then pulls out?
Answer: It all goes to shit.
So PLEASE do tell us what constitutes "winning" in your mind...
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 30, 2006 12:11:56 AM
I would have been pretty offended if someone insinuated that I hated my president so bad that I was willing to watch my fellow countrymen die in order for that president to look bad.
Says the guy who worships his president so much that he cheers the policies that lead to the deaths of his fellow countrymen just to make his president look good. What a pathetic piece of crap you are, toke.
Posted by: Seitz | Oct 30, 2006 12:15:22 AM
"Supporting a man ( not a God, really, honest ) who deliberately tells lies designed to scare the whee out of people"
Who's lies?
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, September 23, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), October 10, 2002
------
I should have clarified earlier, Phoenecian. We may need a long term presence, not occupation. I believe we are still in Germany, South Korea, Japan. We occupy any of those countries?
"Says the guy who worships his president so much that he cheers the policies that lead to the deaths of his fellow countrymen just to make his president look good."
I want to win cuz if we lose, Iraq and the whole world turns to shit with terrorists. You guys would rather see Iraq and the world overrun with terrorists and your fellow countryment die, just so the president looks bad.
And you wonder why America thinks liberals are anti-American?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 30, 2006 6:26:32 AM
Admit it, you hate Bush so bad that if it means America has to suffer a defeat, so be it.
It's actually shocking that you believe people to be capable of this.
I have no problem admitting I hate Bush, deeply and thoroughly. But I love my country, and I have an abiding admiration for the men and women of the armed services who protect it. I don't want America to be less safe and less respected. I don't want the troops to suffer unnecessary injury and death. You can disagree with my assessment, but don't accuse me of wanting to undermine my country and uselessly sacrifice the troops, when the reasons I hate Bush are precisely because I believe that's what he's doing.
I don't "hate Bush so bad that if it means America has to suffer a defeat, so be it." I hate Bush because I believe he has made defeat inevitable.
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Oct 30, 2006 9:58:18 AM
The honest answer for the Left to give would be: "Yes, the war was won in a month, now we should hand the whole thing over to our allies against Bush, Iran and Syria."
Posted by: Guy Montag | Oct 30, 2006 10:11:47 AM
It strikes me the mistake in this game is agreeing to play in the first place - do I think we should win a war? Sure. This isn't a war. We have not declared war; we have a President and others who make lovely reamrks about a "war on terror," but you can't fight an adjective. We are, in Iraq, supposed to be providing military support to a transitional government that seems unable to raise its own army up to this point, in a country that is slowly slipping into civil war. There is nothing to win here. At best, ultimately, we may be able to leave when there is greater stability; or conversely, we may have to make a tactical decision to reduce our presence should Civil War get worse. I really don't understand why some on the left feel forced to agree with the vague, non-specific terms of the right.
Lynn Cheney's question, asinine as it was, underlined what I think is the most losing proposition floating among conservatives - that our problem is a lack of resolve, and it can be solved by haranguing the media. No one wants to see more destruction or further loss of life in Iraq, especially if it can be prevented. But this uniquely Americasn way of casting Iraq, naively, as a "battle" to be "won" distorts what we are doing, why we are there, and what we can reasonably hope to accomplish. Our problem is not, exactly, a lack of resolve, or anyone's inability to underatnd the word "winning." The problem is what we can't win in Iraq is what Bush and Co. keep pushing for, and until we challenge them on poor usage and inarticulate language, liberals will be suckers for a faux debate that we can't, well, win. The losing move is agreeing to play - because this is yet another part of sowing discord where it helps to achieve a political end, and it has nothing to do with what's actually happening in Iraq.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 30, 2006 10:23:13 AM
Since the U.S. has already lost the war in Iraq, the real question is: who lost it? And the obvious answer is: the Bush administration and their supporters. Far from wanting us to win, they didn't lift a finger as disastrous decision after decision was made, plus, of course, the meme about wanting "the good news from Iraq" - which is a way of cutting off feedback essential to actually... winning. There's a name for people who have gone out of their way to lose, and to cover up losing, and to continue a course of losing: losers. Also, of course, they managed to waste 600 billion dollars, nearly 3,000 American lives, however many American casualties (25,000 is it), and to destroy America's position in the M.E. for perhaps a generation.
So, what did they want, these war supporters? One thing: they wanted Bush to look like a warrior hero. That was more important than anything else. Over the dead bodies of half a million Iraqis and counting, now.
Obviously, then, the counterquestion is: who should we lock up? Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz are a start. Bush? Maybe. Deterrence is what we want here, a message that says: don't start and direct frivolous wars for petty personal advantage.
Posted by: roger | Oct 30, 2006 10:34:48 AM
It still seems to me that "yes" is the best answer. Many liberals seem to fear answering affirmatively will commit them to things they don't support. I think it only commits me to wanting Iraq to become a stable place, an ally of the US, not a haven for terrorists, more democratic than it was, and possibly the example for the region the boneheads who pushed for this war intended. How likely is any of that? It looks unlikely, as it always did, but unlike some here, I can't see that it's all impossible. Wanting these things doesn't commit me to any particular means of pursuing them. It doesn't even commit me to favoring any further efforts to pursue them, if it becomes clear all such efforts will cause more harm than good, something not at all clear to me now. The alternative to continuing to try seems far worse for now.
"Yes" only commits me to wanting what we would all want here, predicated on the belief that we still have some influence on how things will turn out, and at the least some ability to keep them from being as bad as they could be.
I opposed this war in the strongest way from the time it was just a rumor. I thought the whole idea was an arrogant, ignorant pipe dream, that it was likely to result in just the kind of mess we have now, and worse. I didn't think Bush was very bright, but I didn't think he could be stupid enough to actually do it until I could see it was inevitable. But we're there now. I have to want the best possible outcome, despite my strong belief that the whole project was a terrible, unjustifiable idea.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 30, 2006 12:54:53 PM
Roger, which of the outcomes I mentioned (Iraq to become a stable place, an ally of the US, not a haven for terrorists, more democratic than it was, and possibly the example for the region the boneheads who pushed for this war intended) do you believe are now impossible or that we have no remaining influence on? All of them? I can't see that. Even your very limited advice to pressure the Iraqi government on our way out (which makes little sense to me, as we lose our leverage as we leave) is apparently trying to achieve one or more of those goals.
Do you think just withdrawing would not lead to a far worse situation than staying? I do, but would be interested in why you seem not to. If we shouldn't just leave today, what should we aim for while there? As little as possible, to preserve the perception of our power? Too late for that.
How did this became a question of cheerleading for you? I said nothing about that, and it could hardly be plainer that I'm not cheerleading for Bush or advising a policy of cheerleading. You seem too concerned about whether wanting victory serves the interest of the undeserving rather than whether it serves our interest overall (something Toke greatly exaggerates in the liberal response but is right to question). Bush and company may deserve less than nothing, but that can't be a consideration in what serves our interests in Iraq.
The Bush plan was really an embodiment of Thomas Friedman's idea that we just needed to smash something after 9/11.
I see no evidence for that. I think, as many have all along, that this was more than anything else an outgrowth of a grand "domino theory" plan to reform the Middle East, as outlined by Wolfowitz and others before Bush was elected. Public reaction may mirror Friedman's idiocy, but this plan was favored by Bush's advisors before September 11th, as has been well documented.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 30, 2006 2:05:04 PM
To avoid confusion, the above post is response to the one below. It appear Roger's post and some others have been sent back in time from the future.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 30, 2006 2:09:23 PM
Sanpete, I have to disagree. Wanting something, in a political context, can't be divorced from ways and means, because politics is always and forever the combination of goals and ways and means. They are an integrated set. And what has happened in Iraq can't be undone, any more than I can undo cracking an egg by wanting it to be uncracked.
It never made sense, from the very beginning, that an occupying force would get more popular over time. In fact, that rarely if ever happens, and then only when the occupied country faces some large and immediate enemy. Thus, you have a certain window of time in which to do things. This is a real constraint - it can't be wished away.
This poses a question for real political agents: what is the point of wanting victory (which would be an American favoring, democratic Iraq) when the conditions for that victory have been pissed away? The point of victory talk then becomes obscuring that fact - not because obscuring that fact serves an American interest, for, on the contrary, it doesn't. America's interest is to take a long, hard, realistic look at its Middle Eastern policy. American interest is to look at the Iraqi casualties, look at life in the major cities, look at the surging refugee problem, and ask - has what we have done in the last three years promoted that or prevented it? The answer, clearly, is we promoted it. While Northern Iraq, where we did not occupy, and where we did not disband the security forces, is stable, the rest of Iraq, which we occupied, and in which we disbanded Iraqi security forces, is in chaos. And what have we done to stem the tide of chaos? As the NYT reported this morning, incredibly, the U.S. has been distributing weapons to Iraq 'policemen' and 'soldiers' without even taking down serial numbers - we don't even know where the weapons are going. This is a brain dead occupation, and the only good thing the Americans can do for Iraq is to pressure the government, as we leave, to hold unconditional talks among all sides in Iraq. Period. As in Lebanon, it will probably take a decade of healing.
So, whose interest is served by the winning talk? The interest of a small faction, centered around the White House, who lost the war, and deserve ultimate condemnation for doing so.
The Bush plan was really an embodiment of Thomas Friedman's idea that we just needed to smash something after 9/11. So we smashed the system of states in the Middle East. But guess what? That system actually represented the optimal extent of American power in the Middle East. In the next state of that system, due to losing the Iraq war - and that war is lost if we define the goal as per above as a democratic, American loving, stable Iraqi government - American power is going to be much diminished.
Winning isn't a matter of school spirit, but is pretty clearly laid out in terms of cost/benefit. The cost to America for the war so far is so widely out of whack for the benefit that if the enterprise was a business, it would long ago have gone bankrupt. This is the best predictor of the future course of the war.
Elect a cheerleader president, get a cheerleader strategy. Unfortunately, cheerleaders suck when it comes to playing the game.
Posted by: roger | Oct 30, 2006 2:24:12 PM
I don't "hate Bush so bad that if it means America has to suffer a defeat, so be it." I hate Bush because I believe he has made defeat inevitable.
I, on the other hand, don't particularly mind if America gets a bloody nose. It'll save lives in the long run.
Toke, Iraq isn't going to be stable without bloodshed. There's a civil war coming, and the US occupation only delays it, and will intensify it when it does arrive. The hope now is that when the dust settles, Iraq will resemble Iran rather than Somalia.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Oct 30, 2006 4:22:46 PM
