Apparently in right wingnut circles and spineless journalists there's a call for "democrats" (meaning rationalists in this context) to come forward with their "solutions" to the Bush/GOP catastrophe in Iraq.
Shrillblog amplifies a Kevin Drum response. In brief, this is the GOP's Vietnam. There isn't a fix any longer, there are only less bad alternatives. The less bad alternatives are basically versions of retreat under fire, possibly with a continued presence in the north. It appears that Iran has won, the US lost an immense amount of money and thousands of lives, and the Iraqi people lost much more. If there are better options they will need to come from the Iraqi people and with an internationalized support rather than direct US support.
Politically, the sad truth is that the American people are not ready to hear this. A recent MN opinion poll show that less than 50% believe that the Iraq war was bungled. The numbers are a large increase from a year ago, but that's still not enough.
Given the impossibility of being frank, and the hopelessness of the GOP and the Bush administration, a non-suicidal rationalist politician will say relatively little. (Betty McCollum, our local representative, is rather honest -- but her seat is so safe I think the GOP opposition might be on the lam somewhere).
The irritating thing here is not the GOP ploy -- it's a perfectly reasonable ploy. It's the spineless journalists who play along with it ...
4 comments:
America is yearning for a serious opposition. An opposition with optimism, ingenuity, vision, and strength. The core of such an opposition cannot rest upon the intellectually bankrupt foundations that now underly the Democratic party.
Why should Democrats answer the question, "What next in Iraq?" Because it is the single most important foreign policy question facing the country. And because it should be upon these types of issues that elections are decided.
Even if voters agree that withdrawal is the most appropriate action, HOW we withdraw is a crucial policy consideration. The Democrats have shown absolutely no seriousness with respect to this or ANY of the other questions regarding Iraq; never mind terrorism or the Middle East. When they do offer solutions they land squarely in the land of Pollyanna or the absurd, "When I say a timely response, you know, our fighters can fly from Okinawa [to Iraq] very quickly."
Worse, it is apparently easy to forget that many Democrats past and present pursued policies consistent with those pursued by Bush. Extraordinary rendition = torture? Started under Bill Clinton. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, John Murtha, Dick Gephardt (co-author of Iraq War Resolution H.R. Res 114 Oct. 2002), ...on and on voted for MILITARY intervention in Iraq.
Now they say that Iraq was bungled, and it was. But they blame Bush for "misleading" them into supporting the war. Abandoning responsibility for their own votes! Accusing Bush and his administration of the highest treason and abandoning whatever intellectual honesty they might have remaining. Worse, they cannot even provide a response to the question, "what would you do in Iraq?" And voters should be OK with that?
Republicans have betrayed the platform of fiscal responsibility and leaner government upon which they were elected. The administration has painfully mismanaged parts of the War in Iraq. The Republicans cling to a broken metaphor describing a broad conflict with Muslim extremists as a War on Terror. They pander to their base by holding hearings about Terri Shaivo as if they were drawing some kind of line in the sand or saving her "life."
Yet, in the contest between parties at large...only the Republicans have a consistent strategy on Iraq that acknowledges its importance (which most Americans innately sense). Only Republicans seem to be outraged at the partisan leaking of critical national defense programs. If Iraq is an important battlefield in the conflict between international Islamic radicalism and the West (which it is, no matter what you think the outcome will be). Democrats have to at least explain why it is to our advantage to leave immediately. After Kenya and Tanzania, the Cole, the Khobar Towers, Beirut, Somalia, and countless other examples...Americans recognize that retreat will not bring them safety any more than blind persistence. And THAT is why Democrats owe voters a coherent and sensible response to the "stupid" question, "What would YOU do in Iraq?"
You and I may be yearning for a 'serious oppposition' (though from a different perspective), but I see no evidence that AMERICA is yearning for one. Are there an actions GOP voters are taking that suggest they want a serious opposition? (Not words, actions).
Likewise, there's no evidence that elections are decided on serious foreign policy issues. I think political scientists point to voter turnout, which is influenced more by the price of gas, home equity, religious issues, and fear.
Democratic politicians know the above as well as any political scientist. It's no good wishing the electorate was better than it is. We are what we are.
Can you tell me again where Clinton tried to pass a bill legalizing torture? I must have missed that one. A reference would be handy.
As to Bush misleading, I can only refer to the comments I made in a prior post about selling the war.
Why would I be outraged at the "leaking" of news about torture, which seems to be what you're talking about. I consider that an act of great moral courage by people who share my fear of what this nation is turning into.
Lastly, I think it's basic military strategy that retreat is a better option than being destroyed. Retreat means you get to lick your wounds and fight (or find other means to "win") again. Retreat is not a palatable word, but Bush's bungling has eliminated all the palatable choices.
BTW, look for an October surprise that's all about bringing out the religious right to vote. An executive order pertaining in some way to Roe vs. Wade.
I first and foremost apologize for this comment's length.
You and I may be yearning for a 'serious oppposition' (though from a different perspective), but I see no evidence that AMERICA is yearning for one.
I derive my intuition from my reading and personal perspective. Also from the observation that when Bush's approval rating was in the low 30's and Congress' approval rating was 25%, the Democrats could not convert that dissatisfaction into support. Should not a serious opposition have gathered up support under such circumstances? I think so.
Likewise, there's no evidence that elections are decided on serious foreign policy issues.
I guess Lyndon Johnson missed the memo.
I think political scientists point to voter turnout, which is influenced more by the price of gas, home equity, religious issues, and fear.
I might add weather, organization, polling station proximity, perceived importance, and demographics (particularly age). Yet the importance of these factors does not diminish the need for candidates to articulate a coherent message about the important issues. Dogs can walk with three legs, but it is not pretty.
Democratic politicians know the above as well as any political scientist. It's no good wishing the electorate was better than it is. We are what we are.
Right...thus their success...wait. Huh?
Can you tell me again where Clinton tried to pass a bill legalizing torture? I must have missed that one. A reference would be handy.
He did not...nor did I suggest he did. He started Extraordinary Rendition. Since 9/11 Bush increased the use of Extraordinary Rendition. Many have pointed to this practice as being particularly cruel and linked it with unlawful suspension of habeus corpus. Not to mention torture. Yet the practice of Extraordinary Rendition began under Clinton.
As to Bush misleading, I can only refer to the comments I made in a prior post about selling the war.
And I can only point to the comments made by Democrats endorsing the prospect of war, the threat of Saddam Hussein, and the prolonged time multi-administration time period over which such comments were made.
Why would I be outraged at the "leaking" of news about torture, which seems to be what you're talking about.
I am not talking about torture. I am talking about the leaking of the NSA program to intercept international communications between suspected terrorists and persons located in the US. I am talking about the disclosure of the method by which US intelligence agencies tracked the flow of money to in from terrorist organizations (remember the Swift story?). I'm talking about the reluctance of foreign countries to share important intelligence because they cannot trust the U.S. government to keep a secret. I'm talking about misleading leaks from the April 2006 CLASSIFIED National Intelligence Estimate?
Where is the Democratic outrage? Hard to find, unless you get them going about the non-criminal leak of Valerie Plame's name.
I consider that an act of great moral courage by people who share my fear of what this nation is turning into.
It may take some courage, but it is hardly a "great act of courage." A great act of courage engenders some personal risk or self-sacrifice. All evidence suggests that those placed in jeopardy are reporters, newspapers, and citizens...not the leaker.
Lastly, I think it's basic military strategy that retreat is a better option than being destroyed. Retreat means you get to lick your wounds and fight (or find other means to "win") again. Retreat is not a palatable word, but Bush's bungling has eliminated all the palatable choices.
In what real sense is the American military being "destroyed" in Iraq? The insurgency and Islamic radicals have been effective in disrupting civil society, disrupting/destroying vital infrastructure, wholesale murder, wanton brutality, and providing deadly daily propaganda for the U.S. voter. They are a cruel, cunning, and multi-dimensional enemy. Yet their leaders are targeted and killed. And they are constantly pursued. Intercepted insurgency communications often portray a sense of desperation and defeat, yet here in the U.S. we seem to feel that they are invincible. We also seem to avoid recognition that Iran is fully engaged in that conflict. There is no doubt that the U.S. must work diligently to set the conditions for withdrawal.
Yet retreat is perhaps more dangerous than staying. Read the National Intelligence Estimate recently held up by liberals as validation of Bush's failure. It actually says: "We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere." It goes on to say: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight."
I wonder how they'd interpret a "strategic retreat."
BTW, look for an October surprise that's all about bringing out the religious right to vote. An executive order pertaining in some way to Roe vs. Wade.
I'll be watching.
No problem with the length. I'll be shorter though (so won't quote). I'll not comment on areas where I have nothing to add to my prior comments.
1. Voters want 'serious opposition'.
I, of course, think they had it last election and have it every election. You don't. We'd need to define what 'serious opposition' means then we'd need to agree on a testable measure of it.
2. Foreign policy: I was too emphatic. The American civil war had an impact too. Maybe the Iraqi civil war will matter to Americans more than gas prices, but I'm not so sure. It's very remote for most Americans. Our army is much smaller than it once was.
3. Why have Democrats not been successful? The GOP put together a winning electoral formula: religious right + suburban whites + cultural conservatives + gerrymandering + FOX + fear/terror/fear + utter ruthlessness and a certain measure of vote rigging in Ohio and Florida. It's a good formula for winning and it's worked for them.
I really don't think policy or ideas had much to do with it, though they may have been important for you (eg. you probably went for the small government line).
For Democrats the equivalent strategy might be a 'smart populist' play, which is what Krugman advocates. I don't think you'd care for it!
I don't think there's any success in the political center. Kerry tried that.
4. Legalizing torture vs. extraordinary rendition: Nations rarely go bad in an eye-blink. I read your Wikipedia link and it's interesting. I'd need some independent validation of course, but it makes sense that Bush's evil had antecedents. That's the way nations and humans go bad. Bush has driven us over the cliff, it would not surprising if earlier presidents had skirted the edge.
5.Misleading: I think I covered this very well in my earlier response (see old post).
6.Leaks: Old philosophical argument. Aliens want to blow up the earth. Is it ok to tell them that Mars is the earth? It's a lie. Ends/means, balance, natural law, etc, etc. You think harm done by Bush et al is modest, hence leaks are a greater crime. I think the harm done by Bush et al are massive and perhaps without precedent in the past century, so leaks are a lesser crime. It comes down to how bad one thinks this government is.
7. Retreat: I should have clarified that by "destroyed" I was demonstrating that retreat has its value in general; it wasn't referring to Iraq in particular.
The US Army is not being destroyed in Iraq; sorry for the confusion.
I didn't follow your reasoning however. You seem to be implying there's a good alternative to retreat. Bush, Rumsfeld and the GOP's bungling have eliminated the good alternatives. Don't blame me (or Democrats), blame them.
Post a Comment