Ezra Klein: Your Bimonthly Lieberman Op-Ed

April 26, 2007

Your Bimonthly Lieberman Op-Ed

It's not exactly surprising that the Washington Post is marking the day the Senate votes on a withdrawal resolution by publishing a Joe Lieberman op-ed accusing Democrats of "a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there." But it is telling. You might think they'd invite Harry Reid onto the editorial page, or Carl Levin, or one of the many leading Democrats who is pushing for the resolution and could explain its relevance and rationale to the Post's readers. Instead, it's Lieberman, singing his increasingly anachronistic tune.

"In the two months since Petraeus took command, the United States and its Iraqi allies have made encouraging progress on two problems that once seemed intractable," he writes. It sounds a lot like what he wrote in the New York Post a few weeks ago, before the massive attacks that killed hundreds, when he said, "Amazingly, however, just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat. Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip him of the troops he says he needs and sabotage his strategy."

It's remarkable that the newspapers don't demand a bit more in the way of originality. Back in 2005, Lieberman took to The Wall Street Journal to write, "More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood -- unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn." In fact, it sounds a lot like what he wrote back in July of 2004, when he said, "The successful handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi people last month offers fresh hope for stability and democracy in their country, but it could also mark a turning of the tide in the world war against terrorism."

And on and on it goes. Every few months, Lieberman pops up to identify this -- this day, this hour, this moment -- as the turning point in Iraq and warn that withdrawal will impede the improvements. Then the country descends even deeper into civil war, and he picks a new instant when everything is on the upswing and only American will stands in democracy's way. And, every time, the nation's newspaper editors let him publish, no new arguments or information needed.

Oh, and I obviously can't let the column pass without noting this gem: "When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent." So the Democrats are unwitting dupes of al-Qaeda. And Lieberman, who has steadfastly supported a war that distracted from Afghanistan, de-emphasized the hunt for bin-Laden, re-ignited al-Qaeda's standing in the Middle East, and revealed the limits of America's military might is...what?

April 26, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

accusing Democrats of "a fundamental misunderstanding of both the reality in Iraq and the nature of the enemy we are fighting there."

Sigh... you'd think that people whose philosophical understanding of good & evil comes mostly from comic books and the even more elementary narratives of action films could refrain from lecturing people who actually read a few thick books in college. But I guess not.

Posted by: latts | Apr 26, 2007 10:09:22 AM

It's remarkable that the newspapers don't demand a bit more in the way of originality.

Not so remarkable when we understand that these newspapers still believe they have a vested interest in cheerleading for this war. They publish Lieberman's repetitive columns instead of something from Reid because Lieberman is saying what they want.

What's truly puzzling, then, is why these newspapers continue to sell this war to the American public when it is abundantly clear that the majority of people in this country hate it and want to see it ended.

I understand how politicians and business interests have outsized influence in newspaper content. And I also know that the Bush administration is not completely powerless, and going up against a group known for its ruthlessness and contempt for the rule of law can be intimidating. But at what point are the editors of these papers going to wake up and understand that the vast majority of the American public is fully against this war in spite of their constant cheerleading, regurgitation of Bush propaganda and misleading coverage? Pleasing Bush apologists will give them access, but it's us common folk who will make the paper profitable or not, and all they're doing right now is reinforcing the idea that newspapers are irrelevant.

Posted by: Stephen | Apr 26, 2007 10:23:31 AM

Everything looks great once it's been doctored! Problems that once seem intractable disappear once you cease to acknowledge their existence!

Posted by: norbizness | Apr 26, 2007 10:25:22 AM

And on and on it goes. Every few months, Lieberman pops up to identify this -- this day, this hour, this moment -- as the turning point in Iraq and warn that withdrawal will impede the improvements. Then the country descends even deeper into civil war, and he picks a new instant when everything is on the upswing and only American will stands in democracy's way. And, every time, the nation's newspaper editors let him publish, no new arguments or information needed.

An easy conclusion to reach if you ignore everything he says except one broad point, taken out of context. Today's op-ed actually ties its arguments to the particulars of the current situation in Iraq and here throughout, and does include some new points. You seem to want Lieberman to stake out a fundamentally new position each time, though, which makes no sense, unless he's shifting with the political winds as some do.

So the Democrats are unwitting dupes of al-Qaeda.

Many Democrats, including Lieberman, Edwards, Clinton and Kerry, were unwitting dupes to get us into Iraq. Unfortunately, the quality of the Democratic assessment of the situation hasn't improved much; it's just shifted, following at some distance the shift in the polls. Like it or not, it's a fair point that al Qaeda wants to drive us from Iraq and will be a big winner if we leave, as there will not only be the important moral victory but a very real new permanent base for al Qaeda that the Iraqis by themselves won't be able to remove or protect themselves from. As Lieberman points out, even if the political issues in Iraq were settled today, the threat from al Qaeda wouldn't just go away. It will have to be dealt with militarily, no matter what else happens.

While important, that isn't my main concern. It's irresponsible to focus only on what terrible things are happening and will continue to happen in Iraq, without seriously considering what will probably happen if we leave. Not only will al Qaeda have a safe haven in Iraq, it and other forces will very probably succeed at their other goal of inciting an unrestrained civil war. As horrible as things are, they could easily be far worse. We have a responsibility to do everything possible to prevent that. The Washington Post is right to recognize that, and to publish editorials that go against the political winds.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 11:20:00 AM

You seem to want Lieberman to stake out a fundamentally new position each time, though, which makes no sense, unless he's shifting with the political winds as some do.

I think E. Klein's point was that he effectively IS staking out a new position each time.

He keeps saying, "This is the turning point," but the referent of "this" keeps changing, of course. So he's basically taking a series of positions:

November 2006 is the turning point.

January 2007 is the turning point.

May 2007 is the turning point.

Etc.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 26, 2007 11:31:27 AM

Fair point, Jason, but I was responding to Ezra's broader point that Lieberman has nothing new to say.

He keeps saying, "This is the turning point,"

Except he doesn't. You're right that it's Ezra's thesis, but it isn't what Lieberman's editorials actually have in common. Lieberman mentions fresh hope for a turning point in the first one, being within reach of a watershed with further work in the second, and in the third encouraging progress in regard to Shiite-led sectarian violence and getting Sunni support in Anbar. They all have in common claims of progress and hope for better things, but none is presented as the definitive turning point. The first one comes closest, but even that is carefully hedged. Lieberman's basic position hasn't changed, but the particulars of his arguments do track changing events.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 12:22:11 PM

Yeah, I haven't read Lieberman's editorials, so I can't speak to that particular issue.

I will say, though, that the whole idea of "turning points" is kind of silly. In any situation, it's possible for things to get better from here on out, or to get worse. But the idea that we could identify some moment in time at which the tide is destined to turn one way or the other --- very unlikely, for reasons both epistemic and metaphysical.

Looking back, we sometimes speak of "turning points," this is really just a way of saying that before event X things were tending in one direction, and after event X they started to go the other way. E.g., Gettysburg. Unless you can identify the specific causal mechanism by which some event uniquely set into motion the course of everything that followed, you haven't really identified a turning point. Sometimes you can do that - e.g., Hitler's decision to invade the Soviets arguably doomed him. But usually not.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 26, 2007 1:17:36 PM

joe leiberman is right deomcrats and the people at large do misunderstand the reality of the war.
the war is being fought for israel and oil and why don't we all just get with the program, he is just too scared/corrupt to say it outright

Posted by: eugene | Apr 26, 2007 2:41:23 PM

Jason, I agree with your points.

Eugene, most Democrats probably do believe some version of what you say, but the facts don't support those as primary reasons. The behind-the-scenes accounts and the papers and articles by neocons before 2001 that were calling for invasion of Iraq all indicate the primary purposes to be to finish the 1991 war, to eliminate Saddam, and to make the entire region safer by using Iraq as an example and wedge to spread democracy.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 2:56:42 PM

yes sanpete the very public pnac pronouncement states they are operating in support of israel and to make money for thier members.
you do know the difference between public pronouncements and private behaviour right, think ted haggard, think lynne cheney, think laura bush and manslaughter, george bush and awol.

Posted by: eugene | Apr 26, 2007 3:52:19 PM

Eugene, as I said, the evidence, including that gathered from private conversation and meetings, is against you. Be reality-based.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 4:09:48 PM

Sanpete,
Please provide links to that evidence so i can join reality, or at least tell us who you had those private conversations and meetings with.

Posted by: eugene | Apr 26, 2007 4:14:31 PM

Every once and awhile, I remind myself of one amazing set of facts:
1) Those who supported the war and still support it: Shrinking;
2) Those who supported the war and no longer support it: Growing;
3) Those who opposed the war and still oppose it: The same;
4) Those who opposed the war and now support it; 0

That's actually a pretty weird situation - I'm not aware of many other issues where no one is flipping to one side.

Posted by: MDtoMN | Apr 26, 2007 4:33:15 PM

Eugene, you can start with Woodward's recent books on Bush, the run-up to the war, and his state of denial. I don't always buy Woodward's interpretations, but the information he gathered is impressive and telling. I'd give you more leads, but I've got to drive ten hours starting in ... about ten minutes.

MDtoMN, I opposed the war in the strongest possible terms and still think it was completely inexcusable, but I also oppose withdrawing as long as that will likely result in a far worse situation for the Iraqis. But maybe that isn't what you meant.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 26, 2007 4:44:04 PM

sanpete,
Lets get serious, bob woodward? even state of denial partially rips the lid off the reasons for going to war.
there are far better papers for example:
read truth from this podia by col sam gardiner, it lays out the complete scenario of how and why this war was started
it was written in 2003 and since then there have been several dozen articles that lay out the scheme in better detail.
sanpete, it is hard to tell if you are misinformed or you are just baiting us but you need to be better informed if you really want to understand.

Posted by: eugene | Apr 26, 2007 5:10:18 PM

to make the entire region safer by using Iraq as an example and wedge to spread democracy

These things mean different things to different people, though. In most circles, "making the ME safer" is used pretty interchangeably with "making it possible for the US to operate in the ME w/o too much trouble." "Spreading democracy" is the same thing as "regimes friendly to American interests."

If "spreading democracy" (mmm, democracy) is taken literally, the invasion of Iraq was a blatant challenge to countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan. But nobody regarded it as such.* The threat seems to have been directed more at countries like Iran and Syria, which are arguably more democratic than those previously mentioned - certainly no less so. But they are regarded (correctly or not) as unfriendly to US interests.

* I'm not saying that the interests of these regimes weren't/aren't threatened by the Iraq war. In the case of Saudi Arabia, at least, they pretty clearly are. What I'm saying is that nobody interpreted the rhetoric about "spreading democracy" as indicating an intent to take down the regimes in those countries, and there is no reason to believe that was the intent.

Posted by: Jason | Apr 26, 2007 6:08:08 PM

Good post on this. God, this line of argument from Lieberman makes me so angry. At what point do you stop throwing lives, money, and resources into a plan that's fundamentally unsound?

I really wish the Bush administration had been right. I wish the whole liberators thing had come true. But it seemed pretty naivee then and goddamned idiotic now. It's not like what's happened in Iraq is a surprise. We've seen before what happens when a totalitarian regime that suppressed ethnic factions loses power. All hell breaks loose (like in Yugoslavia). We knew Iran would jump at the chance to weaken its main competitor, and we also knew that Iraq was never really a security threat to the US. On top of that, we invaded in a way that almost guaranteed what would happen would happen. We've had just enough guys to keep the place from completely falling apart, but not enough to do anything constructive.

How the hell can I keep supporting that? Maybe al Qaeda will see it as a moral victory - that's supposed to justify doing the same thing and expecting different results? You're going to tell me that pulling out of Iraq is going to do irrepreparable harm to us and practically hand Al-Q the keys to Washington DC? First, that's bullshit, and second, even if it wasn't, that would sure make it seem like we don't have the power to succeed in Iraq anyway.

If someone really had a bold vision for staying there, doing something that might produce the vision that was sold to us, maybe I could get behind it. But stay-the- course model isn't going to work, and that includes a surge that's a band-aid for a gushing head wound.

Posted by: Brando | Apr 26, 2007 6:57:50 PM

Joe Lieberman and his ilks days are just about up!
HOORAY!!!

Posted by: stickinemwithafork | Apr 26, 2007 9:13:48 PM

Hey, reinforcing failure is one of the key strategic maxims! Oh, wait ...

Posted by: JamesP | Apr 26, 2007 11:07:57 PM

I hope to God the Democrats kick that oily bastard out of the party in '08

Posted by: merlallen | Apr 27, 2007 9:01:01 AM

sanpete, it is hard to tell if you are misinformed or you are just baiting us but you need to be better informed if you really want to understand.

Eugene, I don't know what you may be thinking of. You would have to explain just what it is you think I'm wrong about.

Jason, yes, the idea was that democracies, especially democracies that have big US military bases, are likely to serve our interests (and those of their own citizens) better than the current governments in the region. It was intended to exert pressure for change in places like Saudi Arabia (which neocons are very ambivalent about) and Iran in part by means of a successful example to be envied by others, and was understood that way by many of the war's architects and supporters. Saudi Arabia and Iran were happy enough to see Saddam go, though, for their own (obvious) reasons.

Posted by: Sanpete | Apr 27, 2007 6:28:02 PM

And at what point are the supporters of this war - like Smokin' Joe - not going to have to agree that our actions in Iraq have resulted in far FAR more death and horror for that nation than Sadam ever provided?

Posted by: whizid | Apr 28, 2007 9:35:07 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘