« The Dangers of Performance Pay | Main | Why Labor Matters »
November 14, 2007
Does The GOP Need Iraq?
I genuinely hope Joe Klein is right and Iraq's improvements are durable. And contrary to Joe's implication, I don't think, politically, this is something for Democrats to fear. The better Iraq is doing, the less of an issue it will be in the election. The less of an issue it is in the election, the more issues like the health care crisis, the mortgage meltdown, inequality, and global warming will come to the fore. Indeed, the less Iraq dominates the agenda, the more alternative foreign policy visions can emerge, and be tested, and become the new context for the discussion All that is good for the Left.
Indeed, I occasionally believe that Republicans know that once American troops leave Iraq, the country's need for the Republican Party, at least temporarily, will cease. The Iraq War has increasingly come to define the Republican party. They've sacrificed almot everything else for it, from fiscal discipline to social conservatism (see the Giuliani campaign). So long as troops remain in Iraq, the Republicans can at least argue that they need to finish the job they've begun, and that the Democrats lack sufficient commitment to victory. End it, and you end their relevance, at least until they can reinvent themselves as the party of closed borders. My sense is that, consciously or unconsciously, some of the GOP knows this, and it underpins their unwillingness to even begin drawing the conflict to a close. At this point, the end of the war would be existentially unmooring for the Party.
November 14, 2007 in Iraq | Permalink
Comments
"The better Iraq is doing, the less of an issue it will be in the election."
Not necessarily. The better Iraq is doing, the more difficult will it be for republicans to deny the requests for massive withdrawal. And, let's face it, the right wingers simply don't want to withdraw, because they desperately want to keep Iraq as a base for further military adventures.
Posted by: Gray | Nov 14, 2007 11:34:31 AM
Of course, Pakistan may have become a brand-new hairball by next November.
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | Nov 14, 2007 11:53:24 AM
this war isn"t over by a long shot.
Posted by: della Rovere | Nov 14, 2007 11:59:28 AM
After the US lost in Vietnam, the Republicans successfully argued that the loss was caused by a lack of will. This, plus Jimmy Carter, gave the Republicans an issue for 30 years.
I'm pretty sure this would happen in any country that loses a limited war, but maybe someone here has some examples from other countries. Did France's loss in Indochina lead them to pursue a different policy in Algeria? I'd have to brush up on my French history, but didn't the right-wing De Gaulle come to power towards the end of the war in Algeria?
Posted by: stm177 | Nov 14, 2007 12:01:13 PM
Feeling Panglossian today, eh? If the Iraq is an unmitigated disaster in November 2008, that fact will be very, very good for D's and very, very bad for R's. If the war has instead turned out well or at least ok ("well" is hard to imagine) then the war turns neutral or possibly even good for the R's. And people tend to care about war.
Posted by: ostap | Nov 14, 2007 12:08:28 PM
stm, the fact that the Democratic party STARTED the vietnam war and then tore itself up over it is what damaged the party. Sure, conservatives talk about it endlessly, but they would never have supported us anyway. Most of the rest of the damage was caused by the fact that we have never since had a truly united party.
We are also now no longer a nation made up by a large number of veterans. The world war II generation is nearly dead, and there isn't any sense among older people that young people are shirking a responsibility they met with stoic reservation. That was a big part of the resentment towards the anti-war movement in those days, and it's completely missing now. In 20 years, it is unlikely that people will still be talking about Iraq the way they still talk about Vietnam now.
Posted by: soullite | Nov 14, 2007 12:18:15 PM
"If the war has instead turned out well or at least ok ("well" is hard to imagine) then the war turns neutral or possibly even good for the R's."
You didn't get the point: Dem candidates are copying successful republican strategies this season, and so their new, plagiarised talking point is: 'Whatever the outcome, it's great for the Dems!'
:P
Posted by: Gray | Nov 14, 2007 12:44:41 PM
"We are also now no longer a nation made up by a large number of veterans."
Sry, souly, but in the reports about homeless vets it was said that about 11% of the population are veterans. Not exactly a small number.
:-/
Posted by: Gray | Nov 14, 2007 12:46:31 PM
First of all, turning to Joe Klein for an assessment of Iraq's political and social stability is like asking Britney Spears to read an MRI. Second of all, calling the escalation a "success" because violence is apparent down in Baghdad is perverse, given (a) the confounding factor of successful ethnic cleansing; and (b) that the objective was supposedly a political reconciliation which has made no progress at all. It's depressing that you and other pundits are getting bored enough by Iraq not to care that the place is totally screwed, and that the "surge" was a total failure at reversing that descent (not surprising, since its only real point was as a domestic political strategy). But I can tell you one thing. You'll perk your head up again when one of the million+ Iraqi refugees in Syria blows up a U.S. embassy, sometime during the administration of Clinton 44.
Posted by: Aaron | Nov 14, 2007 12:54:55 PM
Good points, Aaron, but the problem is, as long as the media doesn't truthfully report about the real situation in Iraq, the republicans will be able to sell the surge as a success story...
:-/
Posted by: Gray | Nov 14, 2007 12:57:56 PM
Murtha's comments accusing our soldiers of being killers, all the Democrats saying the war was lost...oh I assure you that you will be hearing about Iraq for decades if it stabilizes and a semi tolerable democracy develops. If come election time Iraq is peaceful, by Middle East standards, every sound bite of Democrats demanding we pull out immediately because they care about our soldiers will be replayed for the electorate to remember how wrong, once again, liberal policy was. It will hurt democrats on the scale of costing you both houses. Majority of the public is ignorant about the truth, they only know what the MSM tells them, that’s why you see such huge swings in support for such major issues as attacking a country. Once the public finds out how well things ended up, Ds will be held accountable at the polls. Argue all you want; only time will tell. Save this post for next year and see who was right.
Why when I listen to Liberals in the states their assessment of Iraq is 180 degrees from the soldiers serving there? The soldiers say we are making progress on political reconciliation, i.e. they are sitting in meetings between Shia and Sunni reconciling yet Aaron says nothing has happened? The military blogs think the surge has been a huge success, do you know something the else of us are unaware of?
Posted by: Nate O | Nov 14, 2007 1:16:10 PM
I think it's politically naive to assume that a major turn-around in Iraq would be of no advantage to the Republicans. If we see some steps towards political reconciliation, coupled with the success the surge has had in dampening violence, the Republicans will shout this from the roof-tops as both a demonstration of their superior moral steel and as evidence that they were right along. I imagine that this would be sufficiently compelling to a good number of voters, especially when deployed against the more vocal critics of the war on the Dem side. Just a hunch.
Posted by: sean | Nov 14, 2007 1:20:24 PM
You know what's really funny? As this article makes clear, any vaunted "success" of Bush's escalation is thanks to none other than Muqtada al-Sadr, who decided that it was just as well to let the Americans disarm Sunni militias while ethnic cleansing in Baghdad proceeds (now at 75%). You know, sit back and we'll do all the work. So basically, the electoral fortunes of Nate O. and his brethren are dependent on a fundamentalist Shiite warlord who expects continued progress. Better keep him happy, guys.
Semi-tolerable democracy! Major turn-around! This discussion manages somehow to be inane and insane simultaneously.
Posted by: Aaron | Nov 14, 2007 1:30:34 PM
Snappy little dog nibbles, Gray, but until Republicants like you realize that their nifty little tricks have run their course, they will continue to sink in relevance. ;>
Posted by: Conrad's Ghost | Nov 14, 2007 1:35:27 PM
Oh my gosh, I can hardly believe Klien's endless drivel.
Yes,what about those nasty anti-war folk that Klein mentions in his Rove styled "anti-war" folk = MoveOn.org radicals, but this is exactly where you know for sure that Klein, with intent to do so, enters the realm of propaganda because this is NOT his opinion, being that it's certainly completely void of facts SINCE 67% of Americans want out of Iraq now. AND according to the latest Iowa polls via a link a TMP, 53% of Iowa Republicans want to leave Iraq within the next 6 months, while only 20 something percent of Repubs in Iowa want to stay in Iraq.
The refusal of the antiwar movement--or some sections of it--to recognize these developments isn't helping its credibility.
If I were Klein, I don't he should be worried about anyone credibility but his own.
There must have been an era when TIME magazine wouldn't dream of entertained propagandist for lack of professionalism, but with Klein, his ethics are extremely questionable. This man is selling an agenda, that is void of any desire to inform the public, and it is extemely obvious that Klein is doing this.
Americans are far more concerned with the monolithic cost of the war, the instability of our military to continue to fight it, and the vast corruption going on over there.
If Klein wanted real issues to address, perhaps he could go do some research, but that would require honest work, and so it seem, Time's editors don't require any of that.
Posted by: Me_again | Nov 14, 2007 1:50:42 PM
"Snappy little dog nibbles, Gray, but until Republicants like you realize that their nifty little tricks have run their course, they will continue to sink in relevance. ;>"
Uh, fellow dog, you're barking at the wrong tree!
:D
Posted by: Gray | Nov 14, 2007 1:54:13 PM
The war is already over for most Americans - most have long ago decided that it was a bad idea and that the Bush administration are a bunch of seriously fucked up liars. There is never going to be a bright shining happy ending to this story, least likely of all before election day.
If gasoline is still around $3 a gallon, the R's will get pounded at the polls. If heating oil is again up by 40% next winter (and it will be), the R's are gonna get pounded at the polls. If doctor visits and medicine are still roaring up in costs (and they will be) R's are gonna get pounded hard, from behind, without lube, at the polls. Are the R's totally responsible for all of these domestic ills? Who can say for sure. It doesn't matter. George W. Bush and his fans are the face of the Republican Party and they own it. They will still be saying next winter that the war is going great (I saw it on a military blog! Honest!), that oil companies are wonderful, that healthcare is perfect and we can't screw with it. That's all they ever have to say. Voters will look for whatever alternative to this that is available, even if it is HRC.
Posted by: chowchowchow | Nov 14, 2007 1:56:57 PM
Gray, I'm not saying we don't have veterans, but no other generation was mobilized to the degree of the WW2 generation. At the time of the vietnam war, the WW2 generation made up a very substantial portion of the voting public. We have Veterans now, but they don't make up anywhere near a portion of their generation as those who fought in WW2 did. Perhaps I should have been clearer, and said war veterans.
Posted by: soullite | Nov 14, 2007 2:55:10 PM
I really don't think Gray is a Republican...
I know we all assume at this point that everyone who thinks we're being overly optimistic is a concern troll, but sometimes they really are just concerned. I don't think this is going to end up like Vietnam, I don't think it truly impacts a large enough portion of the population to, but that doesn't mean Gray is just trying to fake us out.
As for the war turning around, I don't think it will. It might get a little better, it might not. But it will never end until we leave. No power in the history of the world has ever defeated a guerrilla movement overseas. There are very real reasons for that, and they haven't gone away with our level of technology. Unless you're willing to murder an entire country and likely set the table for a third world war, there is no way to 'win'. To the elite, winning is staying so we have access to Iraqs recourses and we can continue funneling money into their coffers. This will not continue indefinitely, as at some point someone will be opportunistic and power hungry enough to end the war above even elite opinion. Therefore we can not 'win'.
Posted by: soullite | Nov 14, 2007 3:03:17 PM
Does The GOP Need Iraq?
Of course they do, that's why a number of elements in the Bush administration sat around a table with the joint Chiefs, and said nothing, gave no orders, after they received actionable intelligence from our intelligence people in Afghanistan that Osama bin Laden was hiding in the mountains of Tora Bora in 2001. No conspiracy necessary, all they had to do was wait and take no action until bin Laden made his escape. At that point their plans for Iraq were already well underway, and they knew that if they capture or kill bin Laden, their reasoning for invading Iraq would come under much greater scrutiny by the Congress and the media, so they just sat on their hands. The relationship between Al Qaeda, the the Islamic fundamentalists and the conservative Republicans is symbiotic. Neither factions agenda can continue to grow and prosper, without the other. And I imagine that the top leaders in these camps have realized that they need this war, as a matter of political survival.
The gains which have been made in Iraq are a direct result of buying off tribal leaders and insurgents who were killing Americans just months ago. The American commanders saw how offering Iraqi citizens money for turning in insurgents was paying off, so they just broadened that approach to paying off the leadership with much larger sums. As long as the money keeps flowing from the US and Saudi Arabia, these various factions will remain our allies, and continue helping to tamp down the chaos in Iraq -- as long as the money keeps flowing.
But what the Bush administration has undertaken is little more than a capitulation, the equivalent of paying terrorists to stop attacking you, a tactic that historically has proven counterproductive in the long term, whenever it's been undertaken in the past. In light of their military and political failures the Bush administration's new policy in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan basically amounts to a divide and conquer strategy that looks good in the beginning, but the moment these various tribal and insurgent leaders realize that it's no longer in their best interests to ally themselves with the US, they will turn on us, and our military people in the field will be back to square one. The "You Can't Beat Them, Buy Them off" strategy is a temporary stopgap whose aim is to give the Republican party some breathing space before the elections, and it's working.
Now all the Republicans need is another major terrorist attack within the United States, to rampant fear, and give them the opportunity to play the blame game, and scapegoat the Democrats for blocking George W. Bush's executive power grab. Of course it won't matter that the Democratic Congress has done nothing to rein in this renegade president, all that will matter is the perception that the Democrats are standing in the way of this president "protecting us", that and the generation of sufficient fear within the US populace could actually offer the Republicans an opportunity to win a presidential election which at this point looks like a lock for the Democrats. I don't see any other way that the Republicans can avoid watching the Democrats win back the presidency in a landslide.
The Bush administration has publicly stated, that they are aware of Al Qaeda cells operating with in the United States. So I imagine that when one of these cells carries out a terrorist attack, they will claim that they were prevented from taking action by that pesky Constitution. I wonder what it will take for this president to decide that it's time to suspend our Constitution, just as Musharraf has in Pakistan, and tell us that it's been done for the sake of the safety and security of our nation, and for the Republican Party to begin making arguments in support of such a move. Perhaps we won't have to worry about the election at all, it will be postponed indefinitely, or perhaps we will have one but for security reasons only Republicans will be allowed to vote, since it will have been determined by the president at that point that the Democratic Party has been infiltrated by insurgents and terrorists. :-)
Posted by: Aaron B Brown | Nov 14, 2007 3:14:20 PM
Aaron, I doubt Bush will pull a Musharaf. The National guard would barely be able to pacify the capitals of every state. The reserves and the military is in Iraq. Our police forces are a joke. Our country has more guns than people, and the knowledge required to make explosive devices is wide spread. Even under ideal circumstances, we do not have enough combined police and defense forces to pacify a nation of 300 million people, and with a land mass greater than all of Europe. Any attempt at martial law would likely devolve into an economically devastating guerrilla civil war at this point, and the corporate masters of the Republican party will see the most lucrative market in the world turn hotbed of terrorism and assassination. To them, money is king. I doubt they would be stupid enough to kill their cash cow.
Posted by: soullite | Nov 14, 2007 3:39:04 PM
Aaron, Osama ran around the world for 8 years while Clinton was president, first WTC in 93? Cole? Somolia? Doesn't that add the Democratic Party to your symbiotic orgy?
Posted by: Nate O | Nov 14, 2007 4:06:45 PM
This analysis is correct. Right now the GOP has nothing but the war, xenophobia and homophobia. I'm not sure America needs a Party that stands for these things and little else. They can say they stand for cutting government, but then there's the pesky little problem of their spending spree from 2000 to 2006.
Posted by: Brendan | Nov 14, 2007 5:20:05 PM
First an Iraq where people can enjoy basic freedoms such as we do here is good for the world and good for america no matter what political party gains, second the redsitribution of Iraq's oil wealth through the increases payroll by the Iraqi government is actualy turning Iraq into one of the more progressive economies in the region, (The Iraqi government still has 3.7 million on the payroll and is the largest employer in the country, yeah I am sure there are some ghost employees but not that many). All of these things plus the rebirth of the marsh arabs, the opening of the Shia pilgramage routes, and the defeat of Al Qaeda in the heart of the middle east are benefit for all us. Its clear the elected Iraqi government will survive and majoritarian rule has come to Mesopatamia, how well the country will hold together is another question and many who oppose this war are right to question how close are the ties that bind Iraq. That will be an issue Iraqi's will have define amongst themselves, until then we can help them keep the terrorists and criminals in check.
Posted by: robert verdi | Nov 14, 2007 5:27:22 PM
The war can be a HUGE repub issue if it goes well. America is oppossed to this war because we are LOSING, Americans are not generally anti-war, Americans are anti-Losing (Panama, Grenada, Gulf war 1, and the initial months of Gulf War 2 enjoyed a lot of support). If the war is preceived and/or can be sold as a victory of some sort, Repub's take all credit and will dump on us dems.
Posted by: Wallace | Nov 14, 2007 5:49:57 PM
While I appreciate soullite’s calm and thoughtful answer to Aaron B Brown, I have to point out that anyone who needs that kind of an explanation of reality is clearly so insane that the explanation is pointless. Of course, while it would be functionally impossible for a sitting President to pull off the nonsense that Brown spouts (I’ll add to soullite’s list of practical reasons by pointing out that the vast majority of our military truly are patriots and would never go along with any type of coup d’état), it is also worth pointing out that the American people have never elected a President so power mad and despicable, that they would try to usurp the office. Those afflicted with BDS will undoubtedly respond to the contrary but I have no doubt that George W cannot wait for the day when he can fly back to Crawford and ignore all the ranting and raving while history plays out to his advantage. Regardless of my distrust for Hillary (whose Machiavellian nature makes Karl Rove look like Cub Scout), I also have no doubt that, if elected 4-8 years will be all she wants either.
The American electorate may occasionally be stupid but it’s not, by and large, crazy. On the other hand, it is frightening to think that the multitude of conspiracy buffoons and paranoid delusional twits that blog so often on behalf of the political left might actually take their medication for a few days before November 4 of next year and find their way to a voting booth.
By the way, Me Again, you need to reduce your daily intake of polling data – it’s starting to rot your brain. Just one example but if you ask me when I WANT the US out of Iraq, my answer is yesterday. Ask me when we can withdraw without serious harm to the US, Iraq, and most of the countries within a 2000 mile radius of Baghdad and I’ll answer not for several years. Polls tell you what the poll taker wants you to hear and given that MSM is about 99% liberal…
Slightly off-topic but under the category of don’t believe the polls; I had a brief debate with someone yesterday (healthcare related) who assured me that the French smoke more than people in the US. His conclusive evidence – a poll, of course, in which a larger portion of the French admitted to being daily smokers than did we Americans when surveyed by the World Health Organization. He had no answer when shown tobacco production data that proved that annually we consume about 500 more cigarettes per capita than the French. My point being that sometimes polls don’t even tell you what the poll taker wants you to hear – sometimes it tells you what the polled think you want to hear. Or they tell you nothing at all.
As for the political impact of more success in Iraq, I have to wonder if even Harry Reid can survive an election in which the competition's ads replay his various surrender statements over and over again. Hillary knows what she is doing by waffling on Iraq and Iran - you will find few such smoking gun type sound bites from her (I don't trust her or want her to be President but don't doubt my respect for her political ablity)
rrd
Posted by: rrd | Nov 14, 2007 6:03:44 PM
Is nate under the impression that OBL is all of 8 years old, or does he not want to take his logic to it's obvious conclusion?
Posted by: soullite | Nov 14, 2007 6:15:10 PM
Everyone seems to be on extra caffeine today and writing the great american blog response.
My quickie is this: Why is it that Klein puts the Republicans in the adult position that if anything goes wrong in the world, Dad (read Republicans) will save us? Is it because Democrats are more fun loving sons and daughters and thus less responsible for the heavier issues that require someone in authority to say "No"? Whatever happened to Kennedy's strong foreign policy and strong economic/tax policy? Also, why is it none of the candidates is forward thinking. They all talk about healthcare (read baby boomer), education (read baby boomers not wanting to pay for their kids), environment (read baby boomers having used SUVs to drive their kids to soccer now feel guilty) BUT NOBODY IS SAYING "Let's go to Mars and get humanity off world." All these other issues will stay with us forever because we're human but no one has the foresight to see our destiny is outer space exploration and we need to put everything toward that. Where is our courage to face new ideas? We're just regurgitating old ideas for old problems. That's just boring.
Posted by: Joan Timm | Nov 14, 2007 6:19:06 PM
You must be on crack!! The worst thing that can happen for the Dems is for Iraq to become a non-issue. The electorate currently has a negative view of the war and they hang it around the neck of republicans. If that view were to become positive, or more likely neutral then that would take a very big political stick out of the hands of the dems. Trust me dems do not want the discussion to change to the goofy science of Al Gore and global warming, the history of democratic foriegn policy, failed health care efforts or the economy of Jimmy Carter. Dems are well served to focus on Iraq and continue to pray for the worst.
Posted by: Sog | Nov 14, 2007 7:22:37 PM
The idea that the U.S. is winning in Iraq is sadly comic - it is like a German nazi claiming his side won world war two because, at the end of it, there was two Germanies instead of one. Yup, all you have to do is change your metrics to get a victory.
But if you don't in Iraq, you get this: the U.S. won the only victory they were going to win, and the only one, actually, that the population was for by knocking Saddam Hussein from power. The rest is retreat, wasted money, and surrenders disguised as strategy. Iraq now has a weak central government allied to Iran, and three other semi-governments, only one of which - the Kurds - look upon the U.S. or the U.S. fave policy - privatizing oilfields - with any favor. There is no way, looking at this constellation of forces, to think that anybody in 2003 envisioned this as victory. Victory is not complicated - the vision of Iraq that was spelled out after the invasion of the place in D.C. was pretty definitive. We would have a secular democracy. We would have an ally. Israel would have an ally - not only that, but a reliable source of oil. The rollback of Islamicist forces-cum-dictatorships (never mind that this combo existed only in the overheated imaginations of drunks like Christopher Hitchens and warmongers) would begin.
Now, of course, Klein can change the coordinates of victory to suit him - it seems to mean for him that three U.S. soldiers will be killed yesterday, and three two days from now, but not three every day in the week. Wow! This is why we have to pour another 200 billion dollars into this project?
The warmongers have played an ADD strategy from the beginning, forgetting what they fervently claimed last week as they go on to claim something contradictory, with equal fervor, this week. It makes for a good debating posture, but a lousy way of ginning up support for the war. That's over. But a nice way to infuriate the liberal wing of the party is to do what Klein seems to want to do here, and reactivate the old 'its the economy stupid" strategy under which the Dems went down to defeat in 2002. One thing we do not need is more Daschle-lite - but apparently that is what some prog bloggers want to feed us. Ah, it takes a lot of effort to turn victory into defeat, but I can see the Dems and their hangers aching to do it just one more time again.
Posted by: roger | Nov 14, 2007 7:30:43 PM
The idea that the U.S. is winning in Iraq is sadly comic - it is like a German nazi claiming his side won world war two because, at the end of it, there was two Germanies instead of one. Yup, all you have to do is change your metrics to get a victory.
But if you don't in Iraq, you get this: the U.S. won the only victory they were going to win, and the only one, actually, that the population was for by knocking Saddam Hussein from power. The rest is retreat, wasted money, and surrenders disguised as strategy. Iraq now has a weak central government allied to Iran, and three other semi-governments, only one of which - the Kurds - look upon the U.S. or the U.S. fave policy - privatizing oilfields - with any favor. There is no way, looking at this constellation of forces, to think that anybody in 2003 envisioned this as victory. Victory is not complicated - the vision of Iraq that was spelled out after the invasion of the place in D.C. was pretty definitive. We would have a secular democracy. We would have an ally. Israel would have an ally - not only that, but a reliable source of oil. The rollback of Islamicist forces-cum-dictatorships (never mind that this combo existed only in the overheated imaginations of drunks like Christopher Hitchens and warmongers) would begin.
Now, of course, Klein can change the coordinates of victory to suit him - it seems to mean for him that three U.S. soldiers will be killed yesterday, and three two days from now, but not three every day in the week. Wow! This is why we have to pour another 200 billion dollars into this project?
The warmongers have played an ADD strategy from the beginning, forgetting what they fervently claimed last week as they go on to claim something contradictory, with equal fervor, this week. It makes for a good debating posture, but a lousy way of ginning up support for the war. That's over. But a nice way to infuriate the liberal wing of the party is to do what Klein seems to want to do here, and reactivate the old 'its the economy stupid" strategy under which the Dems went down to defeat in 2002. One thing we do not need is more Daschle-lite - but apparently that is what some prog bloggers want to feed us. Ah, it takes a lot of effort to turn victory into defeat, but I can see the Dems and their hangers aching to do it just one more time again.
Posted by: roger | Nov 14, 2007 7:32:15 PM
Reid will not when his reelection if he runs. The main local paper in Vegas berates him weekly and thats his Liberal base. Outside Vegas they can barely mention his name. He is viewed as an embaressment .
When, or did we even, win WWII Roger? We still have more troops in Europe then in Iraq. How many failed governments where created after that war? Nation building is ugly, done right you get West Germany, done wrong you get East Germany. Both require years and billions.
Posted by: Nate O | Nov 14, 2007 7:53:40 PM
Everyone here has apparently forgotten about Iran. Unlike Hussein, the Iranians have announced that they are working on nuclear technology. All of the diplomacy the Dems say they will do with Iran to stop them from getting the tech has already been done by the Europeans, who failed completely. If the Reps win in Iraq, they will be able to say that they have the foresight and resolution to handle Iran, while the Dems don't. All else will be small potatoes (which explains why so many Reps are willing to back someone like Rudy). Varying between hand-wringing, appeasement, and accusing the Reps of fearmongering isn't going to win the Dems anything, especially positions of leadership.
Posted by: Blixx | Nov 14, 2007 8:11:35 PM
I have a RADICAL concept - how about if we focus on the fact that success in Iraq, which I can vouch firsthand is truly being achieved on all levels, is GOOD FOR AMERICA. Failure is not.
You know, "America" - OUR country where Republicans and Democrats both live. Hoping for bad outcomes in Iraq or undermining actual progress there just so that a particular political party gains power is despicable, and, please heed this, is UNAMERICAN.
I await the rants...
Posted by: Bill T. | Nov 14, 2007 8:26:37 PM
CDan the US win in Iraq? It depends on what you mean by "win". I would consider a partition of Iraq into 2 or 3 semi-stable states, in which we have permanent bases in at least 1 or 2, and where insurgency and rebellion is not a major problem to be a win.
As far as Iran is concerned, I think we have to do "Black Ops" to stop their nuclear weapons program. The best way is for CIA or US special forces to arrange for the release of some really nasty isotopes in their nuclear facilities that get those places shut down for a long time. It would even be better if we could simultaneously arrange for the deaths of most of Iran's nuclear experts, perhaps by polonium 210 in their quarters or in their food. And if these things happened we would probably never hear anything about it. The Iranians would keep their mouths sealed shut, as would we.
Posted by: Andrew P | Nov 14, 2007 9:01:49 PM
Andrew P, when an issue is real big in the news then all of a sudden they stop talking about it does that mean CIA killed them all? depending on the story could be good or bad
Posted by: Nate O | Nov 14, 2007 9:07:25 PM
Nate, you are right. That is why the British had troops in India in the 1890s - they were still fighting the war of 1765. And if you think about it, that war relates to another war and that one to another one until you see what is REALLY happening, which is the Romans fighting the Visigoths.
It is a curious warmonger theme, this one of perpetual war. We are at war with Iraq since 1991 is a popular theme, and at war with Iran since 1979. But the warmongers, for some reason, don't realize that we are still at war with the Navajo - and even worse, the perfidious British. No wars, in that mindset, ever end. Because every war, in that mindset, is good. It makes Pavlovian sense. When there is a significant parasitic sector living off war industries, in order to continue to prosper, and, really, because they are human and have some load of guilt for shedding endless blood, they have to weave these fantastic stories.
Unfortunately, the sector most seduced by these stories consists of that white male upper middle class sector that is also provides, as it happens, the consulting class for the Dems. Thus, the completely stupid idea gets going that these people have to be appealed to. There's no reason to do it, really. They are, of course, bankrupting the country with pointless wars, which are, to them, so many sports; and, on the other hand, they have allowed a real, small vulnerability, to a very small Islamicist paramilitary group, to actually grow in size that it is easily conceivable that a state like Pakistan, in the next ten years, will be run by another al qaeda sympathizing group. Although the Bush administration has shown an almost unbelievable incompetence in everything they approached, foreign policy wise, they did do one wise thing, from the political point of view, by letting Osama bin Laden escape and using him as a terrorist on tap figure to motivate various wars - but this act is probably going to blow back on all of our heads in the years ahead. As for the good news in Iraq, that is almost too funny - the one thing we know about terrorism in the middle east is that it grows in situations where masses of refugees are created, and what the Bush people have done is create the largest group of refugees in the Middle East since 1948. Excellent work! Terrorism on tap plus 2 million refugees equals a real win, there, in the Middle East.
Posted by: roger | Nov 14, 2007 10:14:33 PM
Nate, you are right. That is why the British had troops in India in the 1890s - they were still fighting the war of 1765. And if you think about it, that war relates to another war and that one to another one until you see what is REALLY happening, which is the Romans fighting the Visigoths.
It is a curious warmonger theme, this one of perpetual war. We are at war with Iraq since 1991 is a popular theme, and at war with Iran since 1979. But the warmongers, for some reason, don't realize that we are still at war with the Navajo - and even worse, the perfidious British. No wars, in that mindset, ever end. Because every war, in that mindset, is good. It makes Pavlovian sense. When there is a significant parasitic sector living off war industries, in order to continue to prosper, and, really, because they are human and have some load of guilt for shedding endless blood, they have to weave these fantastic stories.
Unfortunately, the sector most seduced by these stories consists of that white male upper middle class sector that is also provides, as it happens, the consulting class for the Dems. Thus, the completely stupid idea gets going that these people have to be appealed to. There's no reason to do it, really. They are, of course, bankrupting the country with pointless wars, which are, to them, so many sports; and, on the other hand, they have allowed a real, small vulnerability, to a very small Islamicist paramilitary group, to actually grow in size that it is easily conceivable that a state like Pakistan, in the next ten years, will be run by another al qaeda sympathizing group. Although the Bush administration has shown an almost unbelievable incompetence in everything they approached, foreign policy wise, they did do one wise thing, from the political point of view, by letting Osama bin Laden escape and using him as a terrorist on tap figure to motivate various wars - but this act is probably going to blow back on all of our heads in the years ahead. As for the good news in Iraq, that is almost too funny - the one thing we know about terrorism in the middle east is that it grows in situations where masses of refugees are created, and what the Bush people have done is create the largest group of refugees in the Middle East since 1948. Excellent work! Terrorism on tap plus 2 million refugees equals a real win, there, in the Middle East.
Posted by: roger | Nov 14, 2007 10:15:15 PM
Bill, don't you understand that America must lose in Iraq. That is the only way that the left in this country can feel good.
This is why I left the Democratic party years ago. I also grew up. To parapharse Churchhill If you're in your 20's and not a Liberal, you don't have a heart. If you're in your 40's and you're not a Conservative, you don have a Brain.
While I'm not exactly comfortable with the far right religous wing of the Republican Party, the far left of the Democratic Party is absolutley Frightening. A Liberal with a cause is far more dangerous than a Preacher with bad hair.
Soullite:". No power in the history of the world has ever defeated a guerrilla movement overseas. There are very real reasons for that, and they haven't gone away with our level of technology"
Really guess you never heard of Rome. They did it for 1,500 years. So did the Greeks, Persians, British etc.
No matter how much you want the world to be a place where everyone holds hands and sings Imagine. It isn't going to happen. The world is a nasty place where Jail House Rules apply. Is it better to be feared or to be Loved? When you realize that no matter what you do, no matter how kind you are, they are never going to love you. At that point you damn well better pray that they fear you.
Posted by: Foncool | Nov 14, 2007 10:49:56 PM
Victory--I can smell it.
And what does victory look like?
Victory in Iraq looks like an oil- and water-rich country closely allied with the US arch-enemy in the Middle East, Iran, and because of the Kurdish problem that the US has promoted, these two countries are newly included in a larger alliance not friendly to the US.
Iraq/Iran/Turkey/Syria/Russia/China.
Nice work, George.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 14, 2007 11:23:14 PM
look at the exit poll in 2006 ... its speaks volumes
Posted by: bob | Nov 15, 2007 12:27:04 AM
Foncool-- Very, very amusing. You see, it wasn't Churchill who said it, but rather Francois Guizot, a 19th century French monarchist. And how exactly did he put it? "N'etre pas republicain a vingt ans est prevue d'un manque de coeur; l'etre apres trente ans est prei'ue d'un manque de tete."
Posted by: Aaron | Nov 15, 2007 12:34:41 AM
Nobody knows what victory looks like anymore...
If they do, buzz me then.
Posted by: BWAF | Nov 15, 2007 2:54:28 AM
Foncool,
The Romans were a loot and plunder warrior culture. The Roman empire gained its wealth through military expansion. In fact, the military sent wealth back to Rome. The Romans existed before widespread use of gunpowder or high explosives.
The United States is a commercial power, and loses money every time it occupies a country. The industrialization of firearms has made them so cheap, that every policeman on every street corner has to worry about every twelve year old boy that looks at him funny. This logic will drive the United States from Iraq - it has always been just a matter of time.
Posted by: stm177 | Nov 15, 2007 3:44:34 AM
Don't worry - Joe's never right...
Posted by: jjcomet | Nov 15, 2007 10:34:53 AM
I have a RADICAL concept - how about if we focus on the fact that success in Iraq, which I can vouch firsthand is truly being achieved on all levels,
Wow, I had been reading the news about the main goal of the surge not being met, but if some random stranger in a blog comment says that things are going great, I'm convinced!
Hoping for bad outcomes in Iraq or undermining actual progress there just so that a particular political party gains power is despicable,
Are you arguing with the voices in your head? Because I don't see anyone here saying they hope for a bad outcome in Iraq. Names, please.
and, please heed this, is UNAMERICAN.
Fine, let's take it for granted that such people are out there. So what?
I await the rants...
Posted by: Bill T.
Wow, and I thought I was passive-aggressive. You may have been mercifully brief, but your comment was no more substantive or polite than any rant in this thread so far. Feeling persecuted much?
Posted by: Cyrus | Nov 15, 2007 10:46:28 AM
Look, regardless of which political party the Iraq war benefits, it's dismaying to see the public and press so quickly losing interest. If it's not the story of the day, it no longer matters? I realize we're a fast-paced media-driven society, but if 2 years is all it takes for the population to settle down because conditions have improved (despite the overall situation remaining the same)...well, that's pretty disheartening.
And now pundits are saying we're in for a rerun of 2000, with the parties running on their standard boilerplate rather than facing the massive issues 9/11, the war on terror, and the international alienation of the past few years supposedly raised to the forefront? Pathetic. I hope it's not the case.
And does anyone else remember that it was only after the Democrats won the 2006 election that Bush announced the surge? Though it wasn't the change in plan they wanted, it was a change in plan and it only came about when he lost his comfortable majority and "stay the course" no longer seemed to be working with the public.
Iraq is here to stay, for better or worse (and right now, luckily, it's better than it was a year ago). Can we please keep our eye on the ball without getting bored and switching to the latest celebrity scandal and/or same-old same-old political issue rehash? Can we prove to the rest of the world we're not as immature as they think we are?
Oh, and to echo someone else's point, what about Iran? Suddenly last week's news? Pathetic.
Posted by: Joel | Nov 15, 2007 12:45:31 PM
....". I wonder what it will take for this president to decide that it's time to suspend our Constitution, just as Musharraf has in Pakistan, and tell us that it's been done for the sake of the safety and security of our nation....."
Actually there is no need to suspend the Constitution, provisions within the Patriot Act would allow for in the case of a "Declared National Emergency or threat there of" any President to extend his term by increments of 1 year with a maximum of 2 extensions bringing the extension in line with the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution which limits a President to an accumulative term of 10 years.
I seriously doubt that Bush would invoke this provision, but the option is there should it be needed.
I'm a bit surprised that the Liberials here weren't aware of it? I always assumed that was one of the main reasons they are so opposed to the Patriot Act.
Posted by: Foncool | Nov 15, 2007 5:32:52 PM
al-Qaida ran around the world after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Madrid? London? Indonesia? Doesn't that give pause to the Republican party's assertion that Iraq is central to the war on terror?
Nate, two can play this game.
I'm happy as a pig in mud that fewer of our soldiers are being blown up in Iraq. I'd like that number to go down to zero.
Posted by: Lynn | Nov 16, 2007 10:03:29 AM
" al-Qaida ran around the world after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. Madrid? London? Indonesia? Doesn't that give pause to the Republican party's assertion that Iraq is central to the war on terror?"
Al-Qaida ran around the world before 9/11 and the ivasion of Iraq. WTC 1, Embassy bombings in Keyna & Tanzania, the USS Cole. Notice a difference in who got hit before and after?
Could it be the response they got from 2 different Presidents? One felt that everyone in Al-Qaida just needed a hug and another felt that they needed to be killed.
Posted by: foncool | Nov 16, 2007 1:23:47 PM
foncool | Nov 16, 2007 1:23:47 PM:
One felt that everyone in Al-Qaida just needed a hug..
Which President is that? The one that sent cruise missles after Bin Laden and put him at the top of the list of security threats to the US or the one that sat on his hands while Bin Laden skated out of Tora Bora and doesn't spend that much time thinking about him?
Posted by: grape_crush | Nov 19, 2007 12:59:07 PM
