April 12, 2004
The Uncertainty Principle
The extent of denial on the Right, concerning the disintegration of Iraq, knows no boundaries. They are accurate in predicting that the small bands of enemy fighters, spread across a growing number of cities, will be crushed – by means unbecoming a military force of ‘liberators’. Fighters loyal to Cleric Sadir (himself included) will pay the heaviest toll. Yet, it is uncertain if the widespread condemnation of scores of innocent Iraqis killed, will give the Coalition forces pause.
Supporters of this administration can still point to the polls citing a clear majority steadfast in favor of the invasion, resigned if Saddam is the only consolation prize and heck, even the Liberals won’t consider the idea of cuttin’ and running.
Yet in Iraq, the fear that most threatened the Wolfowitz Plan (a Shi’ite uprising), now comes with an attached list of Uncertainty Principles: a Sunni uprising and possible opposition Coalition partner; the future Iraqi Governing body (with no discernable legitimacy or support), curiously silent when condemnations of the insurgents are warranted, yet expressing outrage over civilian causalities, destruction, and their unfolding consequences; and, an inconceivable June 30th hand off whose execution may depend on election year politics, rather than achieving stability in less than 90 days.
Back home, the fear that most threatens the Bush/Cheney ’04 Plan (losing the Terrorism issue), now comes with an attached list of Uncertainty Principles: the consistent, damaging evidence on Intelligence failures, eating away at the underpinnings of Bush’s greatest strength; a growing credibility gap, framed by Richard Clarke’s Rove-proof Litmus Test, which Condi Rice’s testimony only exacerbated; the unfortunate position of being graded each month on the only box score that matters, and solid economic growth that just can’t seem to work its voodoo.
And, then there are the increasing (and, increasingly unacceptable) deaths of American soldiers. Presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (who has a son serving in Iraq), recently remarked that only after middle and upper class Americans realized their sons may be drafted, did public opinion really turn against the Vietnam War. But, that was also the era of the 3 major TV network household. Here, in this era of 500+ basic cable channels, images of the wounded, flag draped coffins and grieving families, may not have had a similar impact – but why take the risk.
That was one thing the Bush administration made certain of.
The Pentagon is expected to cancel the demobilisation of about 25,000, scheduled to return home as part of the annual rotation of war-weary soldiers with fresh troops.
It’ll be interesting to see the kind of reactions this move sparks. This problem, coupled with the points mentioned in Bert’s article are clear repercussions of rushing into a badly planned war, without making even a half hearted attempt to sell the war to the international community, and gain some tangible support.
I’m afraid at some point, the draft may have to be reinstated in order to fill in the proper numbers. I’m worried that Bush might wait until it’s staring him in the face to do this.
I think Bush lacks a real sense of the emergent character of things like this, of the way in which the things that you neglect now come back to haunt you later.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2004 09:43 AMBert:
You certainly do take a partisan viewpoint in all measures. And I commend you for that—you speak what you think, and you have a right to do so.
However, the facts don’t all line up behind you, nor are your conclusions necessarily correct.
For instance, you talk about areas of uncertainty by taking a negative slant on them: the economic recovery that you dont seem to see, the end result of the Clarke-Rice testimonies etc.
I’d like to ask you and Stephen a question ahead of the times, for the sake of posterity. Bert, for you the question is whether you favor the June 30 deadline, or whether you have a different deadline in mind. You see, it seems to me that Democrats are bracketing the administration—-some Dems are saying get out soon, others are saying dont get out yet etc. That way, which ever way Bush goes, there will be a group that stands ever ready to condemn him for his direction.
Stephen, the question to you is whether you favor a draft. Seems to me Charlie Rangel is the first to have brought up the idea of a draft. I’m personally not in favor of it, but wondering what your thoughts are.
Thanks for the opinions, guys.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 12, 2004 11:39 AMJoe,
Your comment seems to imply that the draft is a Democratic policy simply because Charlie Rangel introduced it. But that is not true. Rangel introduced the draft because he wants all Americans to face the potential threat serving in the military brings. Rangel believes that finacial straits force low income minorities to join the military, and that people of priveledge and power make decisions that place troops in jeopardy without having to worry about whether their own sons and daughters have to face the dangers of war. Rangel hopes that if everyone’s child were subject to military service, that polititians would be more deliberate in deciding to go to war.
I don’t agree with Rangel’s logic. It may be true that some underpriviledged individuals do join the military in order to lift themselves up, but many more join out of a desire to serve. But regardless of what a person’s motivation is for joining, no one signs those enlistment papers out of ignorance.
Michael, which is it? Is the invisible free hand of American free enterprise a good thing? If so, how can you attribute anything other than self-interest as being the primary motivation for enlisting in the services, especially as an enlisted person. If selfless motivations are at work behind enlistments, then why don’t we mandate selfless motivations of companies and corporations for the benefit of workers and the nation as a whole?
Can’t have it both ways. Humans are either motivated by self-interest or they are not. But, if one believes in free-enterprise capitalism, one cannot also ask that people enlist in the armed forces to face maiming and death for selfless reasons. It is a contradiction conservatives need to wrestle with.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2004 01:41 PMWho said anything about selflessness or free-enterprise capitalism? I’m not implying that those who join out of a desire to serve do so without any self-interest. They aren’t serving for free.
I was mearly stating that the idea of reinstituting the draft was not necessarily a Democratic Party policy.
I don’t think the draft is a good idea. I disagree with Rangel’s logic for reinstituting it. I don’t think that sending people to fight a war against their will is a good idea.
Posted by: Michael at April 12, 2004 02:01 PMWhat’s needed is not a draft but better incentives to re-enlist (this has been a problem for some time now—long before the current conflicts and the Bush administration). Nobody in the Pentagon to my knowledge has called for a draft,an the problem with Rangel’s proposal was that he explicitly said that having a draft would help mobilize anti-war activities—in short, it was nothing but Vietnam-era nostalgia and not in the least a serious proposal to improve military readiness.
Posted by: Martin at April 12, 2004 06:12 PMStephen,
such a measure is already in the works. And this time around, the loopholes have been closed:
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a “Smart Border Declaration,” which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a “pre-clearance agreement” of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Will this become a key issue in the upcoming election? What’s more important to the soccer mom’s out there — the safety of their children or plentiful cheap gas for the SUVs? Will the broad-based patriotism demonstrated by “Proud to be an American” bumper stickers and flags out front of the home translate into an equal eagerness to ship their child into nations full of fanatics looking forward to martyrdom, especially when the reasons for war seem dubious at best?
Posted by: blipsman at April 12, 2004 07:11 PM
The date should not dictate our policy. Results should. If the results of keeping the date are a weak puppet government that’s going to be smacked around mercilessly without our presence, and riddled with insurrection, then the June 30th handover would end up being so in name alone, and nobody will be fooled. In terms of the draft, I would have been willing to endure it for the war in Afghanistan, and I am willing to endure it to keep Iraq from exploding into civil war and sending shrapnel throughout the middle east. I’ll hate such involuntary conscriptions, but I’ll support them knowing the alternative is further violence and strife in the Middle East.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2004 10:19 PMJoe,
If you consider my take as ‘partisan’, I will assume you’ll agree those on the Right with a totally different take (Will, Brooks, Krauthammer), share the same label.
The ‘facts’(your word) or the information/news accounts (mine) I used, will certainly pass the Dick Clarke Accuracy Test, unless proven otherwise.
What you see as my ‘conclusions’ are merely my observations and assessments shaped by what I see as the short term repercussions or fallout.
And, it all bares out in how the American public is reacting and what they’re saying to the media, their legislators and the pollsters - ‘negative slant’ optional.
As far as the June 30 deadline question, hand over on that date is untenable. Please take time to convince me that any and all directives of the Iraqi Governing Council will not be opposed or veto by the Bush administration and that the transition of power will have an equal stabilizing effect as crushing the insurgent uprising is predicted to accomplish.
I am currently vetting and editing a commentary based on my view (presently), that an unconditional pull-out by Coalition forces is the only solution.
However, in the short term, the deadline should be put off indefinitely; an infusion of 50,000 more troops should be deployed; Paul Bremer has to go and the Governing Council disbanded; and, UN and NATO forces should be brought in the negoiate and execute the establishment of 3 seperate tribe/states: self-governing based only on a democratic model.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 13, 2004 02:15 AMBert:
An unconditional pull out of Coalition troops would be crazy—-it would simply allow those with the most guns to take back power. I suppose you could say it was the “will of the people”, but it would really just be the will of those with the guns.
As far as UN involvement, I’m all for it. Not unconditional, since they’ve not shown me they can do much of anything anywhere in the world. I mean, their record in these kinds of situations is really pretty bad, and the fact that the UN allows situations such as Rwanda to fester on their own shows me they have no real abilities.
But I do like the internationalization of the leadership in Iraq, in order to turn over a new Iraq to its people. Yes, of course this gets into the area of pushing them towards a government that might not be what they would have chosen, but its also a means of showing them possibilities that theyve never encountered before. If you grow up in a fascist dictatorship where any thought might be punished, you tend not to develop many new thoughts. So they need help.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 16, 2004 07:30 AMJoe,
I was hedging on whether I’d get to finish my argument…
In my plan, an unconditional pullout by Coalition forces would coordinate with a massive influx of 150-200,000 multi-nation forces under the direct control of the UN Security Council. (The US abdicates it’s veto power.)
This will only happen following a contrite and absolute relinquish of control by Bush or a Kerry victory. In my scenario, this will be seen as a great victory in the Arabic world, yet, in reality, could prove a pyric victory in the larger context of the war on terror.
Last, I will never understand the dismissive arrogance of those on the Right, towards the U.N. It’s the same mentality that gives Clinton no credit for the ‘90’s economic boom. Surely, you would admit our failure to get UN backing for the Irag was a major mis-step? And, when will you recognize allies like France and Germany have much more experience when it comes to Arab nations?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 16, 2004 08:12 AM
