Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen, one of the pro-war complaints against the anti-war side is the amount of unrealistic Monday-morning quarterbacking your arguments involve. If you’ve been against the war all along for ideological reasons—fine, but why not just come out and say so? You can look at photos of the same burning truck from different angles in twenty magazines, and watch CNN talking heads debate for two weeks whether the sexual humiliations at Abu Ghraib should be best compared to the Holocaust or Vietnam—but you’re still not getting the full picture.

Some on the right also seemed to think we’d fight a war and then sit down with the conqured to share tea and cupcakes the next afternoon—but they’re no more realistic.

* “If we had come in with a sufficient reserve force, we could have clamped down on the cities we had taken, and the victory would have been complete.” Really? You sound pretty sure of yourself there. What does it look like when you “clamp” down on cities in a way that will totally ensure such utter passivity? A soldier on every street corner? In every bedroom? Would that have prevented the planting of roadside bombs, the main killer of American troops? And what number of reservists would it have taken to guarantee no resistance after the war whatsoever? Do you really know the truth about this matter which has elluded our generals, or are you just in a partisan rush to say that there was no planning and no competency on the part of the Pentagon? There is still a line of thinking on the part of military planners that more troops rambling around in Humvees in Iraq would just equal more targets. We haven’t lost one battle or engagement that I know of because we were outmanned or outgunned.

* “Did the Democrats let the looting and lawlessness go on after the fall of Saddam?” Would Democrats have preferred that we slaughter looters? The fact that Baghdad came to look like LA for a few hours after the fall of one of the century’s worst tyrants was probably unavoidable. Unless of course we had that soldier on every streetcorner and in every bedroom.

Martin,

Surprise! Yes, I am one of those who believe the stability of Iraq would be quite different if we’d started with 200,000 troops in Iraq.

Would it have stopped road side bombs killing soldiers? Yes. With enough troops to guard weapons piles and effectively disarm remnants of the Army, Baathist loyalists and Saddam’s special squads.

Its perception. The looting occurred because Iraqis knew of the soldiers orders not to interfere. Why? To quell the rioting, soldiers would be pulled from guarding the Oil Ministry bldg.

The Al-Sadr uprising was a direct result of many previous incidents exposing vulnerability (civilian contractors as easy targets), sought out for revenge. Perception.

Pipeline sabotage, unguarded borders allowing influx of those armed with even more weapons to fight the Coalition. The bombing of the UN htqtr.

Your overblown dramatics by suggesting we’d allow troops to ‘slaughter looters’, signals the abandonment of this issue as a serious debate.

Which speaks volumns as to the sincerity of your defense, of Bush’s actions.

Stephen, the way I see it, we won the day Saddam Hussein was deposed, or if you want to be technical, the day we apprehended him, and dismantled his government. We won.

We are not fighting a war to win in Iraq today. We are trying to find a way to extricate ourselves without world opinion coming down on our heads for having come, conquered, and left Iraq worse off than it was with Hussein in power.

That is the honest truth about what we are doing there now, and why our troops are continuing to be subjected to insurgency. As you say, it remains to be seen whether we will be able to accomplish this totally unanticipated aftermath of winning.

But, it reminds me of something my Buddhist teacher said many years ago, ‘a person who wins, often does not’. The same holds true for nations. Winning and walking away a winner are two different things, especially in combat. A nation can win a war and lose its popular support at home, far more easily than the Joint Chiefs of Staff want to admit or deal with. How won wins and walks away from battle is as, if not more important in the long run than winning to combat itself.

A warrior can win a war, but, if (s)he comes home without limbs, or the ability to find peace within themself, or fulfill their dream of having and keeping a family as a result of winning the war, they really didn’t win afterall. This analogy holds true for our nation. If we bring our troops home and have lost the confidence of our populace, or have seriously damaged credibility in and for our government, or for example create a civil war at home by reinstating the draft, we will not come home from the war victorious in the long run.

For our nation to win in Iraq, we must return from the war, stronger, more secure, more confident and proud of ourselves as a nation than when we took off for war. I presently do not see that happening.

Stephen,

To paraphrase something I have heard from the left about opposition to the war…

I don’t oppose the dissent, I oppose the way the dissent has been carried out.

It gets to where one feels guilty for even dissenting. Fear not, I’m not giving up. Why? Because I think blaming us is a load of B.S. I’m not one of those people who thinks image is everything. I think it’s practically nothing without some kind of reality backing it up. You can say we are on the way to victory ‘til you’re blue in the face, but ultimately people will discern whether or not you’re getting anywhere for themselves.

I can understand why one would feel guilty for such ‘dissent’ and it has been the crux of my point… can democrats wait until we do actually fail before declaring defeat? Or is it too important for democratic political advantage that the policy fail?

In this respect it is like Vietnam. Militarily we succeed. The invasion is critizised even as it is being executed. It is critizised after resounding success. The occupation is now being critizised even as it is being executed. It will be critizised even after it is over, and I do believe it will be over relatively soon. It’s only been one year after all.

A large component of war is psychological. As well as physically defeated, the enemy’s will to fight must be defeated as well as. Morale. The manner in which the dissent has been carried out by democrats, liberals, and the transnational progressives has not been constructive but destructive.

Moreover, the manner of the opposition of the left and its hard core vitriolic demonization of the Bush administration at every level, not just the war but with every political issue, ensures that the Bush administration cannot trust ‘the opposition’ either in advice or for constructive help.

One argument against Bush has been that he has alienated the UN and our ‘allies’ with his arrogant behaviour, yet much the same can be said about the left with this administration.

The left does not practice what it preaches in this regard. If Bush should moderate his stance vis a vis the international community in order to ‘get along’ the left should do the same. Unfortunately the first thing the left does is demonize. Rather than a common goal of getting rid of Saddam the left calls Bush Hitler and resists any effort to actually get on with enforcing 12 years of sanctions and inspections.

“The public diplomacy of this administration is almost counterproductive, if not pathetic,” he said. “They have not done the work necessary to invest with other countries in the kinds of endeavors that endear us to people and bring people to us and build support.” -courier-journal.com

Let me turn that around for second. What kinds of endeavors that would endear them to us have other countries tried to do to get and build our support? For that matter what does the left do to positively influence the Bush administration? I will submit that the left is on a unilateral and arrogant rampage itself.

Democrats have claimed that they aren’t responsible for not committing sufficient troops for the post-war period. That’s because they have lost control of the White House, Congress and the Senate. Having no power to make good decisions means you can’t make bad ones either (except for all those intresting votes against funding the war by Democrat Senators and John Kerry)
terror.

If you think not having the power to mistakes gives you a credible war managment record, vote for Nader. Independents haven’t been power to make decisions during the Civil, Indian, Spanish, Cold, World, Vietnam or Korean wars. According to Democrat logic, they must be good at managing wars.

Democrats don’t get it. To be credible with regard to National Security you have to champion a better solution, not just criticize the present without a credible alternative.

For that matter what does the left do to positively influence the Bush administration?

What is there we can do? Bush & Co. seem to be so convinced they know what’s best - all we can do is oppose their initiatives and elect someone to reverse the damage.

I think I can understand the left’s vitriol, actually, and have no doubt that segments of the right would behave the same way in their position.

The extent to which people identify culturally with political parties seems to goes beyond issues these days, unfortunately. In the same way that somebody in New York might tend to root for the Yankees and people from Boston to root for the Red Sox, people want to see those “most like them” to come out on top (whether those players on the field really are like them is less relevant that what uniform they put on). It’s a proxy battle and a great many want those who demonstrate their own cultural identifiers to win. And as the red-blue state split shows, it can really be as superficial as geography. It extends into many other areas, though

As Eric’s been saying, the left really does seem to WANT Bush to fail—largely, I think, because he’s taken on huge, ambitious, and possibly world-transforming projects the success of which would strip them of their self-image. What would it mean to the left if he succeeded? If a guy from the other side of the sixties cultural divide really did manage to extend democracy to places where it has never existed before—and not just with legal manuevering alongside international institutions, with high-minded speeches filled with noble-sounding allusions (which would confirm the left’s ideas of how the world ought to work in its response to THEM), but with direct rhetoric backed up with daisy-cutters and aircraft-carriers? It would mean the destruction of their self-image. Therefore, he must fail. It’s not about Iraq so much as their own survival.

Would Democrats have preferred that we slaughter looters? The fact that Baghdad came to look like LA for a few hours after the fall of one of the century’s worst tyrants was probably unavoidable. Unless of course we had that soldier on every streetcorner and in every bedroom.

Slaughter looters? Are you familiar with the phrase Martial law? If a part of our country is under martial law, we tell people that more or less looters will be shot! Should we be lax overseas where we’re not at home? We should have given people the impression that the law still exists, that it isn’t everybody for themselves and God against them all. Baghdad and the other cities should have given the impression that we were not going to take any crap, and that they might as well act as if government had never gone away.

Because we failed to get them at that point, we failed to nip the insurgency in the bud. We failed to give them the idea that even going and stealing from their former tyrants would not be tolerated. If it took a soldier on every street corner, so be it. That’s occupying a country right: not giving the people the impression they can rebel against you. I would think you’d have a stronger stomach about occupying nations, since your people would have us do that for the next thirty years.

Eric, criticism comes with failure. Persistent criticism comes with persistent failure. Tell me what your success have been in the last year. Tell me what rebellions we’ve put down, what cities we’ve regained. You cite this general wonderful state of affairs in Iraq, but when it comes to specifics, I never hear them from your people. At some points saying “your criticism is undermining me is a lily-livered way of dealing with your PR problem. So stop blaming us for not seeing an occupation that has killed several times more soldiers than the invasion itself.

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but the marks of a successful occupation are not losing cities, horrendous casualty rates, and an inability to reconstruct basic infrastructure and economic functions. If this were going well, Iraq would not still be big news 24/7. It would be relatively boring in comparison to any number of other issues.

As for feeling guilty, I don’t. But sometimes it seems like your side is engaged in a neverending battle to put a guilt trip on us for criticizing your administration. Hence, the Tom Tomorrow allusion. That phrase “why do you hate America so much?” is satirical in the comic, showing the way legitimate criticism is shot down with charges of not being patriotic.

I want what’s best for my country. I want Iraq to be a war won, not a war lost. I want mistakes to be corrected, the proper amount of resources asked for and given, and this thing to be resolved with America safer and more secure.

You have failed to convince me through these brute force recriminations of our motives that your system of thought, the methods you would use, and the aims of this administration are valid and based on sound evidence. Given that I love my country, I cannot, without proper persuasion, agree with you. I think the president is wrong, and if you can’t tell my why he’s right in terms that are persuasive to me from my standpoint, you won’t win, and what’s more, you won’t deserve to win.

Colin Powell did more to gain my support for the war than any other cabinet official. After months of hot air on the subject, it was Colin Powell’s clarity and his willingness to present a case rather than simply assume agreement among the right-thinkers that brought me on board for this war. I combed through the channels, through the news hoping to hear about WMDS, to hear about us breaking up terrorist camps all over the country, or finding a connection between them an Al Quaeda. In my heart of hearts, I was frustrated with years of unreliable and non-existant cooperation with the UN inspectors. I was frustrated that we never took him out in the first place, or destroyed his armies when we had the chance.

But as mistakes and inconsistencies have piled up, so too have my doubts about this administration, to point where a simple partisan hope that he would not get reelected turned into a fervent personal desire to see Bush out. I don’t oppose Bush simply because I’m a Democrat. I oppose him because I think he doesn’t have the judgment, the wisdom, or the knowledge the office requires.

Stephen wrote:

“Because we failed to get them at that point, we failed to nip the insurgency in the bud. We failed to give them the idea that even going and stealing from their former tyrants would not be tolerated.”

Excuse me if most of us don’t weep crocodile tears about some poor impoverished peasant walking off with one of Saddam’s solid gold toil-paper dispensers. Interesting though, that in their zeal to attack the president for anything and everything, the left now decries the loss of Saddam’s personal belongings. But as Lieberman says, hey, if you guys had your way he would still be sitting in his palaces and ordering the murders of his people. But here are the problems with your analysis.

1. Looting and rioting began when the lead elements of American forces were still entering Baghdad (or other cities where this occurred). It happened while there was still fighting against remnants of the Iraqi army. No matter how many troops eventually arrived—if five million troops were behind the forward elements—at some point a power vacuum was inevitable. Or is the Democratic postion now that thousands of troops must enter a city at once—that probing actions by smaller forces, standard military tactics, are now forbidden? Even though that would entail great risk of life, it’s now more important to prevent smash-and grabs by hungry desparate people than concentrate on winning the battle first? This notion (not a military one, actually, but a partisan smear) is one that requires the full cooperation of the defeated army, who must agree beforehand to exit en masse at an appointed time, at the SAME instant a HUGE occupying force enters so there’s no power vaccum for even twenty minutes (the time needed to smash a window and empty a store).

2. Think of the public relations debacle that would have ensued from such a crack-down—all the talking heads of Europe, the Arab world and the American left howling in unison about how the American occupation was “worse than Saddam” because people were shot for trying to steal bread (it might have been VCRS they were actually taking, but “bread” or “basic needs” is what the headlines would have shouted.) If American troops had shot a couple thousand people to protect Saddam’s property, the left would have shouted “No better recruiting tool for Osama bid Laden!” But since it never happened, they now have to claim that it should have.

3.Lastly, does anyone seriously believe that the “insurgents” are even the same people as those looters? That fanatical Baathists and foreign terrorists (most of whom still hadn’t arrived in country) were the ones involved? That characters like Al Sadr, who hasn’t been dissuaded even though dozens of his followers are being killed every day, would just have folded their tents and gone home if we’d been stricter with looters?

Such are the logical contortions necessary for those who always know better than the military and the president.

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but the marks of a successful occupation are not losing cities, horrendous casualty rates, and an inability to reconstruct basic infrastructure and economic functions. If this were going well, Iraq would not still be big news 24/7. It would be relatively boring in comparison to any number of other issues.

What cities have we lost? Horrendous casualty rates? No reconstruction going on? Are you kidding me? Admittedly you have to search hard for positive reports from Iraq, but that is not because there is nothing positive going on in Iraq. The media has the same problem here in the US. How many news reports feature the building of a new school, bank, or water treatment equipment upgrade? Virtually nil. You hear about everybody who died. You hear about every bank robbery in town, every shooting, every ‘abnormal’ event is what is news.

Lost cities. The only city you can even attempt to say we have lost is Fallujah. Yet we decimated fighters in that city and we could have ‘destroyed it to save it’ so to speak but we didn’t. Marines have been patrolling with Iraqi soldiers since May 10th without incident.

You might find the Belmont Club a good evenhanded positive source for news analysis about Iraq. I like his essays. They are informative and seem to be pretty straight with the facts.

Here’s a letter from Army Specialist Joe Roche. “Keep the Faith: A letter from Iraq.”

The news you are hearing stateside is awfully depressing and negative. The reality is we are accomplishing a tremendous amount here, and the Iraqi people are not only benefiting greatly, but are enthusiastically supportive.

My job is mostly to be the driver of my platoon’s lead Humvee. I see the missions our Army is performing, and I interact closely with the Iraqi people. Because of this, I know how successful and important our work is.

My battalion carries out dozens of missions all over the city — missions that are improving peoples’ lives. We have restored schools and universities, hospitals, power plants and water systems. We have engineered new infrastructure projects and much more. We have also brought security and order to many of Baghdad’s worst areas — areas once afflicted with chaos and brutality.

Our efforts to train vast numbers of Iraqis to police and secure the city’s basic law and order are bearing fruit.

Our mission is vital. We are transforming a once very sick society into a hopeful place. Dozens of newspapers and the concepts of freedom of religious worship and expression are flowering here. So, too, are educational improvements.

This is the work of the U.S. military.

Our progress is amazing. Many people who knew only repression and terror now have hope in their heart and prosperity in their grasp.

Every day the Iraqi people stream out into the streets to cheer and wave at us as we drive by. When I’m on a foot patrol, walking among a crowd, countless people thank us —repeatedly.

I realize the shocking image of a dead soldier or a burning car is more sellable than boring, detailed accounts of our rebuilding efforts. This is why you hear bad news and may be receiving an incorrect picture.

Baghdad has more than 5 million inhabitants. If these people were in an uprising against the United States, which you might think is happening, we would be overwhelmed in hours. There are weapons everywhere, and though we are working hard to gather them all, we simply can’t.

Our Army is carrying out approximately 1,700 convoys and patrols each day. Only a tiny percentage actually encounter hostile action. My unit covers some of the worst and most intense areas, and I have seen some of the most tragic attacks and hostility, such as the bombing of the United Nations headquarters. I’m not out of touch with the negative side of things. In fact, I think my unit has it harder than many other Army units in this whole operation. That said, despite some attacks, the overall picture is one of extreme success and much thanks.

The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq are really aiming at you back in the United States. This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists.

The reality is one of an ever-increasing defeat of the enemies we face. Our enemies are therefore more desperate. They are striking out more viciously and indiscriminately. I realize this is causing Americans stress, and I assure you it causes us stress, too.

When I was a civilian, I spent time as a volunteer with the Israeli army. I assure you we are not facing the hostility Israelis face. Here in Iraq, we Americans are welcomed by most Iraqis.

I’m not trying to sound like a big tough guy. I’m scared every day, and pray before every mission for our safety and success. This is a combat zone. We are in the heart of the world’s leading terrorist birthing society. I remember well how families of suicide bombers who attacked in Israel received tens of thousands of dollars from Saddam for their kins’ horrendous crimes. A generation of Iraqis was growing up in a Stalinist worship of such terrorism.

They are no longer.

Instead, Iraqis today are embracing freedom and the birth of democracy. With this comes hope for the future.

Yes, there are terrorists who wish to strike these things down, but this is a test of will we must win.

We can do this, as long as Americans at home keep faith with the soldiers in this war.

We are Americans, after all. We can and must win this test. That is all it is.

I know it doesn’t look good in the media Stephen, but I do believe that we are making progress in Iraq and that we cannot afford to abandon it. We cannot afford to demonize it to the point that Americans will just give up on it. It would be a disaster of monumental proportions, and it doesn’t have to be. Have some faith, and be patient.

I will start looking for this positive news and reporting it here possibly. I may even get to go to Iraq at some point. I’ll make sure to take alot of pictures if I do get to go and relate my experiences etc.

Martin, what I wrote of is a matter of enforcing the small laws so that people don’t get the impression they can break the big laws. It puzzles me that you are going out of your way to portray these looters, who often stripped the insulation off of buildings, then set them on fire, as simply blowing off some steam. Maybe they were, but maybe, just maybe, you’ll agree with me that looting and lawlessness are inappropriate means of expressing that frustration! And you say liberals are too permissive as a culture!

As for Public relations debacles, the looting was one! We were protecting the ministry of oil, and letting everything else go to hell, including a museum with many precious irreplaceable archeological artifacts. As for avoiding such a debacle with the Arab community, if you were so concerned about that you should have never invaded in the first place.

It is you who has to go into logical contortions to justify a lack of force on the ground. It’s you who has to defend lawlessness and theft, and who says that an Army occupying a nation’s capital shouldn’t impose martial law and preserve order and stability.

If we had been tougher with the looters and the other lawless types, we would have sent the implicit message that we were in control, that we were the law, and that just because we weren’t tyrants ourselves, doesn’t mean we’re pushovers.

Instead, we sent the message that American forces did not have the power to stop even the most meager of offenses. If you don’t have the manpower to stop looters, what does that say about your ability to stop terrorists and insurgents? Nothing flattering, that’s what.

Eric:

We both agree we’ve lost Fallujah. But how can you claim that we haven’t lost Najaf and other cities, when Moktada holds their places of authority, and we’re still fighting street to street there? We have problems. We agree on that. The Belmont link looks interesting, and I’ll take you up on that, but the letter looks much like one you referenced back in december of this last year, and it’s been quite some time since then, and things have changed since then for the worse.

Additionally, the question that rises to my mind is what did this guy know about what was going on around him? I understand he probably knows more about what’s going on on the ground than I do, at least from his local perspective. But taking things from that local perspective, he may not have been in the right place to see things go wrong, or have had the right perspective to notice the precursors of the difficulties we are now in.

Also, the guy is obviously adopting the language of the administration. The very pattern of his words speaks of desperate people trying to sabotage the growth and spread of freedom- not much different from what the administration says.

I’m not saying the guy is a flack, but I wouldn’t put it past him to say yes if some person in the administration asked him to present a more administration-friendly point of view. It’s nothing to be ashamed of if he really meant it, thought it and believed it, but that doesn’t mean that it must be persuasive to everybody. He had his opinion and his points when he wrote it. But what he says is just one piece of perspective among many, and unfortunately, the problems that ruin everything don’t have to be universally obvious to do their worst.

You know, that’s the reason I’d tell you that we needed a more experience person in office than George Bush. Bush doesn’t have that deep of a well to draw upon when it comes to foreign policy, and it’s evident in the ham-handedness of his policy, the graceless way in which he deals with international policy. I mean, at the very least, he could keep his subordinates from making inflammatory remarks out in public the way Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz did. But he doesn’t know enough on his own to know when these people are reaching, when they are B.S.ing him, or when they are simply serving their own ends. He has the committment necessary for a leader, but not the wisdom or the knowledge.

. I really don’t like Bush’s tendency to paint himself into corners. If he were just doing this to himself, I’d not complain, but since he’s president, he’s making these decisons for all of us.

I think the fact that he forgets that on such a regular basis has been one of the most destructive things in terms of his popularity.

As for the war, I hope it doesn’t get demonized and problematized to the point where we have to leave in shame. But I still regret we ever got into it, and I still hold Bush responsible for that error.

As for the war, I hope it doesn’t get demonized and problematized to the point where we have to leave in shame. But I still regret we ever got into it, and I still hold Bush responsible for that error.

I can live with that.

RE: al Sadr

I see some success there too. Sadr seems to have been outmanuvered. Politically to boot. Militarily his men are a nuisance that will cost us tens of soldiers lives. I do feel that cost as heavy. I really do.

Still, Al Sadr has been islolated by the Shia community. And I think they are content to let us take care of him. His is not a popular uprising.

I still believe on the whole that Iraqi’s are distrustful but not jihad prone. I suspect that the average Iraqi is more ‘moderate’, men and women who are just like us.

Hey Eric,

You guys on the right sure do eat up that conservative think tank generated spew.

Your buddy, Army Specialist Joe Roche, is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. A conservative think tank formed in the 80s to support Reagan’s democracy domino experiments in Central America.

I wonder if Joe Roche was also praising the work of Reagan’s CIA-led Honduran death squads? I’m sure he’ll get along fine with the new Iraqi ambassadore, John Negroponte, who oversaw the illegal Reagan administration funding of the Contras and turned a blind eye to those death squads.

suexoelee euuai.