Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Stephen,

All of the evidence needed for your equation - responsibility and the consequences - has been starkly laid out, and is staring the American electorate in the face!

And, I have no doubts they know Bush is lying, no matter how much of his campaign stump speech they cram into Iyad Allawi’s TelePrompTer!

However, post-9/11, to penalize Bush for lying about Iraq, is admitting failure - and, their integral personal complicity. And, regardless that Kerry promises to stay the course, taking his position is still somehow admitting defeat.

Right now, only a glaring display of incompetence by Bush during the debates (a very real possibility), can or will get the American electorate over that threshold.

I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this Stephen, how can I put this gently… the left’s view of Iraq and therefore it’s approach on Iraq is completely and utterly wrong. Glad to hear that the invasion and defeat of the Baathist Saddam Hussein regime is now, “a brilliant, successful war to destroy a tyrant.” There’s hope for you yet. If you have finally come to that conclusion, in another year you will be saying the same thing about the insurgency.

#1 Declaring defeat is not a strategy for winning.
John Kerry and democrats are now actively declaring defeat in Iraq. Kerry calls this ‘being honest’, I call it Vietnam syndrome. This ‘newest scorched earth, take no prisoners’ campaign strategy is incredibly irresponsible. Is Iraq a complete defeat? Yes or no? Is the country completely under the control of insurgents? Yes or no? Are US troops unable to fight the insurgents and win? Yes or no?

The answers to these questions say alot about the outlook, the temperment, and the ability of Kerry or Bush to win the war on terror. There is a vast difference between honest evaluation and election year defeatism. The Howard Dean position on the war effectively ends Kerry’s candidacy.

#2 The existence of difficulties is not evidence of defeat.
But the willingness to accept it as such is.

The Bush strategy is working. Albeit slowly. More slowly than anyone would like. But then that is reality. Things don’t always go as quickly as you’d wish, or as planned or as expected. You take stock, assess the challenge and tackle it. Our troops are winning. They are beating the terrorists at every turn and at a relatively low cost when you compare it historically. We won the war that Bush spoke of when he said major combat operations were over.

We are training Iraqi police and army they will in the end have to defend their own country. I believe they will. In the end they will determine the fate of Iraq.

All of this takes time. Time for which democrats are not willing to wait and therefore want to abort the whole operation.

#3 Kerry still doesn’t have a coherent plan for Iraq.
Kerry’s ‘Iraq plan’ is driven purely by partisan politics and is subordinate to his campaign strategy. This is an election after all and what do you expect? But Kerry does not have a coherent plan to combat what he is describing as a complete failure.

Kerry says things are not getting better in Iraq and that we have to change course in order to win. What is his plan to do that? Fewer US troops? More French troops? A UN high commissioner? UN ‘legitimacy’?

His website has a four point plan.

* Internationalize, because others must share the burden; * Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security; * Move forward with reconstruction because that’s an important way to stop the spread of terror; and * Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.

With the only possible exception of the first point how is this different from Bush’s plan?

And honestly, how will the first point change anything on the ground fighting anybody?

#4 All of the preceding makes Kerry the wrong man, at the wrong time, for the wrong war.

I found this today by a colonel serving in Iraq. He said that Iraq is not comparable to Vietnam, but to Guadalcanal. It think this is a good historical perspective.

“In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of Guadalcanal in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized the airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat—a statistic that should put today’s Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.

“Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can’t win.”

I don’t know, Bert. I look at it, and I see that varying degrees and layers of knowledge and recall are at work. I think people like us are rare, because not all people choose to be as immersed as we are in the subjects that we are.

I think the key is to get the basic facts out there, and build a consensus among voters concerning them. This is what Bush fights, and to some extent fights well, by having his message outlast our memory. I think we (and furthermore Kerry) should be consistent on pounding this point home. Bush has browbeaten us with his rosy “optimistic” view of what’s going on in Iraq, now it’s our turn to beat back with the ugly truth. We should be willing to take a short term hit in popularity in order to shift consensus.

Why? Because I think people will feel better once things have shifted our way. I think that part of the dark mood in this country is a product of the continual irony between Bush’s “optimism” on Iraq and the real situation. There is a certain kind of tension involved in having something be wrong, but not feeling free to voice that concern. It’s its own kind of stress, and in fact one of the more troublesome kinds.

By exploiting terrorism, telling us we are in a state of war, but not involving us too much in the sacrifice and work to be done, Bush has put us into a position of learned helplessness, a position that works out fine for him politically as he becomes sort of a comforting presence, regardless of his performance.

But it’s not a position that will make us more secure. This is not a nation of Kindergarteners, and Bush, regardless of what he and his supporters say is not capable of stopping all attacks on this country.

This is a Democracy, and that being the case, decisions, dicussions and debates on policy cannot be confined to strictly one party, much less one branch of the government. If we send mixed messages with our debates, so be it- our actions will clear things up for those confused. In the end, the muddled policy of the Bush administration has sent the most powerful mixed messages. I mean, leave it to the Bush administration to give you five different policy positions on elections in Iraq.

Whose dark mood are you referring to, I wonder?

A “dark mood” has resulted on the part of voters from being too optimistic and not accepting the Democratic party line that Iraq is an unmitigated and hopeless disaster?

“Iraq is an ugly, hopeless hell. We’re not only losing, we’ve lost already! Cheer up! Elect Kerry!”

The only ones who find any cheer in that brand of hopelessness are those whose most fervent goal is to elect John Kerry. The only dark mood I see is on the part of those whose position looks increasingly likely to be rejected by American voters.

Eric,

#1 Declaring defeat is not a strategy for winning.

No one is declaring defeat. Kerry is pointing out that Bush is completely incompetent, and totally incapable of winning this war cleanly and quickly.

#2 The existence of difficulties is not evidence of defeat.

There’s no doubt that someday Iraq will be a sovereign nation and US troops will come home.

Bush will continue to bungle the operation as just as he’s been doing for the last year. You say that we’re experiencing difficulties. Bush has said Iraq was a “catastrophic success”, but he says in retrospect he would not have done one thing differently. That’s just stupid.

Under Bush’s mismanagement, Iraq will eventually become sovereign - most likely as an Iranian-style theocracy - and US troops will eventually come home to a lukewarm welcome. Their brilliant drive to Baghdad will have been forgotten and all the American public will remember is the streetfights, suicide bombers, and the ambushes. Hollywood will go crazy refighting the war to a successful conclusion with a new round of Rambo and Chuck Norris movies.

Kerry will listen to his intelligence sources and consult with, rather than dictate to, his commanders on the ground in order to bring about the best possible solution in Iraq.

#3 Kerry still doesn’t have a coherent plan for Iraq.

C’mon Eric. You say that, then you say “With the only possible exception of the first point how is this different from Bush’s plan?” Are you saying that Bush’s plan is incoherent?

Kerry has a brilliant plan which centers around a leading role for NATO and the UN.

Any Iraqi government installed under a US occupation will be seen as a US puppet. We both know that if Allawi, or any of the the other Iraqi exiles get elected, they will only stay in power by using US Marines as an Iraqi Praetorian Guard used to quell dissention and civil war. Only UN and NATO control has any chance of preventing that outcome.

Get over it Eric. Bush failed.

Well, the bold words about Iraq that Kerry & Bush put forth are amusing in an Elvis Costello “My Aim Is True” sense. Anyone notice the trial balloons going up? Anyone watching? I know the debate about Iraq is fascinating, kind of like a slow-motion car wreck or film of the Hindenberg, and the urge to adopt a Democratic or Republican posture is nearly irresistable; however, it’s just rubbernecking; the only difference is whether you look out the left or right side of the window. The messy accident slowly sides past, distracting us from those red flags waving ahead, or the 99 red balloons, or whatever silly metaphor you care to extend! The idea is slowly but surely being insinuated into the public awareness. This war is done, and we’ll be out within the year.
Trial balloon: NIE estimate leaked.
In response, the President notes his intelligence agencies are “guessing.” But even the news networks come to the astounding realization that the Sunnis just might not be okay with a Shia dominated democracy, and that civil war is more than just a vague possibility. The discussion has been set in motion.
Trial balloon: the Novak colummn. Numerous links have already been provided on watchblog.
Trial balloon: The Iraqi election will occur 1/31/05, ready or not. Apparently a bad election will be better than a delayed one. Better for who?
Trial balloon: Rumsfield suggests we may withdraw before there is peace. He’s floated a couple balloons in the past few days.
Folks, it’s done. We can’t maintain the troop commitment, and this deployment of forces leaves us dangerously exposed in a strategic sense. We’re not going to replay WWII & carpet bomb the Sunnis until they embrace democracy. I think it would work, by the way. But to our credit as Americans & as human beings, we’re unwilling to commit murder on that scale… right now… I wouldn’t completely rule it out, but slaughter on that scale would require a lot of lies to whip up war fever & enthusiasm for killing, and that it most definitely not happening… right now.
The next President will take the fall. Keep your powder dry, there will be ample opportunity to line up a firing squad for the next head of state based on statements being made right now.

Eric-
I’m sorry to tell you this but…
Everybody’s view on Iraq is wrong in some way. Making this a contest of ideologies will only perpetuate errors

Your assertions deserve some questioning.

1)”Declaring defeat is not a strategy for winning.”

Not only is this statement tautologically obvious, it’s absolutely irrelevant to my point. You’ve read my previous posts, haven’t you? Have I said I want us to declare defeat? When I think we’re defeated, I’ll say it loud and clear. For now, though, I believe victory is possible. I just don’t think the Bush administration is doing much right to bring about that victory.

2) “The existence of difficulties is not evidence of defeat.”

I’ve never declared defeat. It’s you who have prematurely predicted the outcome of the battle, time and again.

3)”Kerry still doesn’t have a coherent plan for Iraq.”

It’s coherent enough for you to quote in four sentences.

4)Why has over a year and a half passed by without American forces asserting full control over Baghdad? Why is Osama still running free? Will deposing Saddam Hussein be worth crap if the country falls into chaos because of Bush’s negligent approach to this war?

Jack-
An interesting perspective but a fallacious one. Guadalcanal was strictly war. There were no civilians to speak of, no territory that had to be occupied and governed.

Martin-
I believe I was clear on that: The American people. And the dark mood is clear with the vicious attitude of both sides.

As I told Eric, I do not believe we’ve lost. I do not see things as hopeless, but I do not allow myself to be fooled into believing that this is just some propaganda war. We will not win by saying we will win over and over again. There are real world objectives and infrastructure that must be deal with.

Talk to me about hopeless people when Bush fully takes the cities back.

C’mon Eric. You say that, then you say “With the only possible exception of the first point how is this different from Bush’s plan?” Are you saying that Bush’s plan is incoherent?

Kerry has a brilliant plan which centers around a leading role for NATO and the UN.

Yes, I know all about the details. It’s ‘smarter’, ‘quicker’, and ‘stronger’— and I guess ‘brilliant’ now too. Other than platitudes about how we are all going to be together, the whole as one, how is Kerry planning to change course? I’m still waiting for an answer to that one.

Any Iraqi government installed under a US occupation will be seen as a US puppet. We both know that if Allawi, or any of the the other Iraqi exiles get elected, they will only stay in power by using US Marines as an Iraqi Praetorian Guard used to quell dissention and civil war. Only UN and NATO control has any chance of preventing that outcome.

So much for the “power of my diplomacy”.

Get over it Eric. Bush failed.

I have to laugh at that one. Or shed a tear. I’m not sure which one.

Making this a contest of ideologies will only perpetuate errors

Ideology seems to have everyting to do with it. Or perhaps you’d prefer the term partisanship. I cannot for the life of me tell why democrats are so bent on making Iraq a quagmire. It started before the war, during the invasion, after the invasion, and up till now. From Ted Kennedy to Tom Dashle to Charlie Wrangle to John Kerry it’s been one long national smear.

1)”Declaring defeat is not a strategy for winning.”

Not only is this statement tautologically obvious, it’s absolutely irrelevant to my point. You’ve read my previous posts, haven’t you? Have I said I want us to declare defeat? When I think we’re defeated, I’ll say it loud and clear. For now, though, I believe victory is possible. I just don’t think the Bush administration is doing much right to bring about that victory.

The entire democratic party is declaring defeat. Just like it did in Vietnam. Only now with even less reason to do so. I must have misunderestimated your original post above saying that whole sections of Iraq are under insurgent control, and where our army can’t go.

Never mind that there are whole sections of Iraq now that are under insurgent control, that there are places in the country where the best armed, best trained army in the world have declared off limits to their soldiers, “No-Go Zones”.

For one thing, Stephen, I think the information you have is incomplete. Do you have any knowledge of anything going right in Iraq? You are painting a picture along with Kerry of Iraq in total chaos, total failure. Do you stand by that assertion. It’s simply not true.

I do recall your previous posts and they don’t jive with Kerry’s plan at all. Again I ask, how does Kerry’s plan do what he says it will? How will Kerry change course from the present Bush policy of training Iraqi police and soldiers and fighting the insurgents? Kerry’s plan is not a plan at all it is a wish fulfillment excercise. To paraphrase a lib comic, “I’m good enough. I’m strong enough, and darn it people like me.”

2) “The existence of difficulties is not evidence of defeat.”

I’ve never declared defeat. It’s you who have prematurely predicted the outcome of the battle, time and again.

Then you’re not saying Bush has failed? The whole point of this post is that Bush has been defeated by the insurgents and that we need a smarter, stronger, more multilateral change of course. That is in fact declaring defeat for the President. Isn’t that the point of Kerry’s campaign, to declare Iraq a failure and therefore Bush’s policies a failure?

3)”Kerry still doesn’t have a coherent plan for Iraq.”

It’s coherent enough for you to quote in four sentences.

I’d say his assertions of granduer are coherent enough for such a response. But beyond that when you look at the substance of his latest ‘plan’

4)Why has over a year and a half passed by without American forces asserting full control over Baghdad? Why is Osama still running free? Will deposing Saddam Hussein be worth crap if the country falls into chaos because of Bush’s negligent approach to this war?

Why did the battle of the bulge happen? Why did Ike wait so long to move into Germany allowing them one last attempt to stave off defeat? The insurgents have no where to go. They cannot win. That’s where I am coming from. How can the terrorists and insurgents win? We are engaged in counter-insurgency operations which have different tactics from normal army on army warfare. The combatants do not wear uniforms and blend into the populace. What do you want Bush to do order carpetbombings?

As I told Eric, I do not believe we’ve lost. I do not see things as hopeless, but I do not allow myself to be fooled into believing that this is just some propaganda war. We will not win by saying we will win over and over again. There are real world objectives and infrastructure that must be deal with.

Talk to me about hopeless people when Bush fully takes the cities back.

I see the opposite in what you are saying. You are saying it is hopeless unless Bush is out of office. THe nature of the current battle is different from toppling Saddam. It will take longer and be more taxing. I do not believe Kerry is positioning himself to be able to perservere through such battle. His own supporters will desert him. That is why this talk about doom and gloom is wrong, not because the truth needs whitewashing but because it requires a stiff upper lip and a gung ho attitude that is not present in the anti-war left except when it comes to regime change for Republicans.

Isn’t that the point of Kerry’s campaign, to declare Iraq a failure and therefore Bush’s policies a failure?

No, the point is that, if an independent, peaceful, democratic Iraq is the goal, Bush’s current policy will not get us there. Any Iraqi government elected without full participation by all Iraqis (as Bush and Rumsfeld are proposing) will be seen as illegitimate by those who do not participate. The government will be dependent upon the US military for survival.

Kerry’s plan is to get the UN involved in a leading role. By internationalizing Iraq, the anti-US stance the insurgency has taken will be marginalized.

The insurgents have no where to go. They cannot win.

Didn’t Westmoreland say that? :)

Seriously, you’re right. We can beat any number of insurgents. The problem is, Bush’s mismanagement just keeps creating more of them. The Israelis are militarily capable of holding Gaza and the entire West Bank. But, unless they’re willing to kill every Palestinian, it’s just not in the cards.

The main problem in Iraq right now is not military - we’re going to win any military confrontation - it’s political. And I don’t see Bush presenting a political plan for Iraq other than: We’re going to have an election in January even if nobody votes.

Eric-
Every time I see Bush, he’s emphasizing how he’s a better leader in this war on Terror, telling us how successful the war is. You ask the wrong question in asking why we want a quagmire. The better questions are, why do we think it’s a quagmire, and are we right. You can just outright state we’re wrong, but unless you got some evidence supporting that statement, we are right to criticize, right to demand explanations. That’s Democracy- power depends on explanation.

And no, we’re not declaring defeat. Repeating that won’t make it so. You’ve got strong prejudices concerning the Democrat mindset, and a selective memory for the facts concerning Vietnam. Either that, or a limited knowledge of them. Many of your cabinet officials and the president themselves thought little of the war, and our chances for success. Cheney got five deferments, saying essentially he didn’t believe in the war. Bush stuck himself in the Air National Guard. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were advocates of our Withdrawal. Nixon ran on getting us out of the war, albeit by escalating it. It would take years of revisionism to forget the bipartisan dislike for the war.

Only thing is, we’re still optimistic. You’ve gotten relativistic about it. When you accuse Kerry of all those tax hikes, a good number of those were tax cuts the Bush Administration apparently felt were insufficient. Nonetheless, Bush counted many tax cuts Kerry voted for as tax hikes. Same thing with this war. For you, and admission that things are not going as well as they should be is equivalent to an admission of defeat.

But as before, it is not what you call it. It is an admission of difficulties, not a declaration of defeat with them. Bush’s political survivalism has made it difficult to make decisions which confirm his opponents views. That means that he’s doing everything he can not to admit more soldiers were needed, even backdoor drafting the National Guard into becoming forty percent of the forces in Iraq.

That means he won’t admit, like you seem unable to do, that our lack of control over regions, cities, and villages should raise concern. I mean, you take me to task for having partial information, but at least I’ve got some facts to present to you. You seem only to be able to contradict me. But contradiction isn’t refutation.

You have a problem concerning the refutation of Kerry’s plan. You say it’s just like Bush’s. Granted, it’s similar. But then, having stated its similarity, you then say it’s an exercise in Wish fulfillment. Well, then. Simple logic would tell us, that if the Kerry Plan equals the Bush plan, and the Kerry plan is wish fulfillment, the Bush plan, being so similar, must also be wish fulfillment. So are you in favor of Bush’s plan or against it? You seem to have set yourself up on both sides of the issue rather well.

Then you’re not saying Bush has failed? The whole point of this post is that Bush has been defeated by the insurgents and that we need a smarter, stronger, more multilateral change of course. That is in fact declaring defeat for the President. Isn’t that the point of Kerry’s campaign, to declare Iraq a failure and therefore Bush’s policies a failure?

The whole point of this post is that Bush is losing the war for us, leading us down a path to eventual defeat. As in a defeat that has not yet happened. The direction of the Democrats in the campaign is to say that Bush has made so many grave errors that if we reelect him we might as well start a countdown to defeat. We’re saying essentially the same thing you’re saying- re-electing Bush will lead to our defeat. But we’ve got something you don’t: the facts on our side.

I mean, tell me, every time Bush has said that after point a things will get better, have things gotten better? Or worse? Have these “desperate” insurgents spilled more American blood, or less? Are these soldiers getting more desperate in their tactics, or are they standing and fighting?

And what does the Battle of the bulge have to do with anything? That was conventional tank warfare, a battle that took days, not an insurgency spread over the course of months. Also, the Insurgents don’t have to go anywhere, it’s their country. They can fight us as long as they’ve got volunteers willing to fight and die for their country, and well trained enough to make us die for ours. It’s we who are under pressure, who have additional battles to fight elsewhere that we are losing the ability to fight because of the committment to Iraq. Sooner or later, we will leave. In what condition, is the question here.

Always with you, it’s the Republicans who can do it, not the Democrats. Always with you I’m saying it cannot be done. Hear you nothing that I say? I say that it can be done, but that your president has proven, even to his own party members, that he’s not up to the task. He doesn’t have the imagination or curiosity to overcome his prejudiced view of the world. And the Republican party is unwilling to sacrifice the power he holds by not giving him the full support. Give him four more years, though, and that may be the last four years Republicans spend in the White House for some time.

You guys have WAY too much time.

If you want to know what is really going on in Iraq, listen to jokes the troops say. Another way is to listen to stories on how Iraqis live.

Aldous.

At the risk of sounding like a Leftward sycophant, I must admit to having a bit of a crush on Stephen Daugherty’s posting style in WB. Good article and excellent fencing with Eric, as usual.

Say, is that Eric trying to get his arms around a sow? Looks like that sow is snorting and squealing and farting, and all that slippery, oily grease makes it awfully hard for Eric to get it to hold still and stay in its chair.
But wait! There’s Stephen standing next to Eric & the sow! He’s hiding something behind his back! What’s that you have in your hand, young man?
Mascara! Eyeliner!
Tsk, tsk. You two should know better. Putting lipstick on a pig.

Don, what is this sow, business? I fail to see the relevance and it looks a bit like flame baiting to me, of the kind, “let’s you and him fight”. Care to enlighten us as to how your comments relate to the topic of this article?

I would suggest that debating the Kerry/Bush election positions on Iraq is like ‘putting lipstick on a pig.’ Iraq could be seen as the pig, and Kerry’s position (or Bush’s position, for that matter) could be seen as lipstick. Per my earlier post, neither side has much choice given what will almost surely happen. Unfortunately, neither Kerry nor Bush can come right out and say it. I did not intend that to be personal in any way, and apologize if that struck anyone as personal.

David,
Ummm, I’m just guessing… I just realized… there was a possibility of a very funny misinterpretation!
It might be a good idea for me to stay away from metaphor, & stick with sraightforward point-counterpoint!

Don-
And I thought I had a dirty mind!

Stephen,
I know! I think I know what happened, and truly, I’m sorry!… and trying not to laugh too hard!

Last entry by me…

I’m puzzled as to why anybody would think I was trying to put a good face on Iraq, or Kerry for that matter. Iraq is not a safe place to leave to itself, so neither candidate can ditch the place. Only Bush is trying to make it look like everything’s wine and roses.

Comment deleted for not attributing to whom the quotes from WatchBlog came from. If you are going to quote comments from others at WatchBlog, state who the author of those quotes are.

—WatchBlog Manager—

Counter, really I only had time to read number 1. But that sounds exactly like what Rumsfeld said the other day. Democracy in Iraq would be nice, but we don’t live in a perfect world. So let’s just pretend to have an election. Then Bush can declare, “Mission accomplished!” in time for the election that really matters.

Counter Chicanery-
Military Bases without popular acceptance for American presence in these countries is a recipe for disaster. Your prescription has the clarity of notions that have little context to muddy up the abstract ideas.

Democracy is essential. We cannot be seen to be creators of secular dictatorships. It is our support for oppressive regimes in the area that made us a target for al-Qaeda. They fight us because we prop up those they hate the most, those they see as standing in the way of the new Islamic caliphate they seek.

We must shatter the low expectations of those on the Arab street, leave the Islamist radicals with as little justification for their amoral acts as we can. We must be disciplined, we must be precise, and we must keep the collateral casualties to a minimum. Our current “restrained” approach is a slowburning fiasco waiting to happen.

We cannot hope to win by attrition. The bodies can stack up to the ceiling, but if the insurgents and citizens of Iraq have the will, they will continue to resist us, and they will win. We must instead win by neutralize those forces by isolating them from the social, economic and political forces that legitimize them. We must make Iraqi interests and our own so indistinguishable that they act in our interests out of their own. That’s diplomacy for you.

The currently politically determined military actions are letting a problem fester, letting it grow out of control. America’s foreign policy should not be held hostage to a politicians fight for political survival.

To defeat the dedicated enemies of the United States abroad, it is also necessary to defeat a mistaken political culture at home.

I fail to see where turning against your fellow American is conducive to winning a war against an enemy that wants us to turn on ourselves.

We should not have invaded. We had no immediate threat to make it necessary, to justify our action to the world. There’s a reason why the Neocon talk of staying for twenty years and founding bases is politically unpopular. It’s imperialist on the face of it, and it reflects a great ignorance as to the history of the region and the motivations of these people.

I mean, a Hitler-Stalin Pact Between Iraq and Iran? Good grief. You know what terrorist organization that Saddam gave the greatest support to? The MEK, whose main target is Iran. Never mind that the main use of Chemical Weapons that conservatives speak of took place in the war between these two countries.

Besides, Syria is a much more significant player in terrorism than Iraq ever was. Who do you think controls Lebanon? Who do you think allows Hezbollah and Hamas safe haven? As it is, we are now in between Syria and Iran, in a state-sponsored terrorism sandwich. If that is your idea of good military strategy, I’m shocked.

I’m further shocked that you would even bring out that hare-brained notion of Iraq as a terrorist magnet. Fact is, we’re not drawing these people into ambushes, they’re drawing us into them. The advantage goes to those who have the element of surprise. Using the bulk of our armed forces as bait for ambush reflects the kind of useless stupidity that lost us the Vietnam War, and made an anti-Vietnam War activist out of John Kerry.

It may be emotionally satisfying to make every battle in the war on terror military, but somtimes , the best way to defeat terrorists here is to find them out here and abroad, track their movements, learn their plots, and disrupt their support and their operations. Making this war an WWII style campaign against the political wrongheadedness of the Middle East is the quickest way to yield the advantage to the terrorists. We must answer the threats that are there, not make up new ones to suit our political prejudices.

As for encircling Iran, that only does us good if Iraq and Afghanistan remain friendly territory. If either fails, we will see that encirclement become a greate opportunity for Iran

As for control of Saudi Oil fields, in the long term, it does us little good. We are better off becoming energy independent of them, so we can face them diplomatically from a position of strength. Our continued occupation of Iraq, however erodes the House of Saud’s control of their own country. Worse, if we go in their and occupy Saudi Arabia, we will make literally true the pronouncement of Osama Bin Laden that we were occupiers of the land of the two holy place. Maybe making an enemy out of your average muslim is a good idea in your book, but to me it absolutely reeks.

Frankly, all I see here is imperialism dressed up as a panacea, the seeking of power for its own sake, instead of well considered analysis of our interests abroad. We are not the sort of country that can comfortably take on the role of imperial power without giving up something essential of it’s soul and our freedoms.

Mr. Dougherty:
[“Military Bases without popular acceptance for American presence in these countries is a recipe for disaster. Your prescription has the clarity of notions that have little context to muddy up the abstract ideas. Democracy is essential. We cannot be seen to be creators of secular dictatorships. It is our support for oppressive regimes in the area that made us a target for al-Qaeda. They fight us because we prop up those they hate the most, those they see as standing in the way of the new Islamic caliphate they seek.”]
As I see it, the primary issue here is your assumption of al-Qaeda as a legitimate almost provincial entity deserving of some kind of permission that we establish bases in Iraq (not, by the way, “these countries”). Assuming legitimacy to al-Qaeda or any organization that is self defined as one whose ultimate goal is destruction of Western civilization is the recipe for disaster. I’d submit further that the general population of any country desires “freedom” although the MSM does everything to prove otherwise in this particularly vituperative election cycle.
[Our current “restrained” approach is a slowburning fiasco waiting to happen. We cannot hope to win by attrition. The bodies can stack up to the ceiling, but if the insurgents and citizens of Iraq have the will, they will continue to resist us, and they will win.]
Stephen, it’s a function of the election cycle that has us in slo-mo; what will accelerate our military is an attack on the homeland before the election or Bush in office November 3rd. But my main issue with the above is your (and all liberals) insistence on “citizens of Iraq” in resistance the United States effort on their behalf which, of course is nothing more than MSM prolix on Kerry’s behalf. To suggest that “they will continue and they will win” is defeatist pap aligning you with a pessimism that’s come to define liberals in 2004.
[America’s foreign policy should not be held hostage to a politicians fight for political survival. To defeat the dedicated enemies of the United States abroad, it is also necessary to defeat a mistaken political culture at home. I fail to see where turning against your fellow American is conducive to winning a war against an enemy that wants us to turn on ourselves.]
It seems this statement is aimed at John Kerry. Interesting that you would make it, Stephen.
[We should not have invaded. We had no immediate threat to make it necessary, to justify our action to the world. There’s a reason why the Neocon talk of staying for twenty years and founding bases is politically unpopular. It’s imperialist on the face of it, and it reflects a great ignorance as to the history of the region and the motivations of these people.]
We’re not nor have we ever had the need “to justify our action to the world”, my friend. No one likes the thought of 20 years but considering our tenures in Germany, Bosnia, et al., it’d be unrealistic to assume anything else. But, unpopular you say? Check the polls; watch the states glow a reddish glow as we get closer to Nov. 2. Imperialism? Sorry my friend goes with the territory.
[Besides, Syria is a much more significant player in terrorism than Iraq ever was. Who do you think controls Lebanon? Who do you think allows Hezbollah and Hamas safe haven? As it is, we are now in between Syria and Iran, in a state-sponsored terrorism sandwich. If that is your idea of good military strategy, I’m shocked. I’m further shocked that you would even bring out that hare-brained notion of Iraq as a terrorist magnet. Fact is, we’re not drawing these people into ambushes, they’re drawing us into them. The advantage goes to those who have the element of surprise. Using the bulk of our armed forces as bait for ambush reflects the kind of useless stupidity that lost us the Vietnam War, and made an anti-Vietnam War activist out of John Kerry.]
Iran controls Syria. The Viet Nam war didn’t make an anti-Vietnam War activist. John Kerry’s ambition and Quest made him one.
It may be emotionally satisfying to make every battle in the war on terror military, but somtimes , the best way to defeat terrorists here is to find them out here and abroad, track their movements, learn their plots, and disrupt their support and their operations.
No disagreement here – so do I assume you believe we’re not doing this now??
[Making this war an WWII style campaign against the political wrongheadedness of the Middle East is the quickest way to yield the advantage to the terrorists. We must answer the threats that are there, not make up new ones to suit our political prejudices. Frankly, all I see here is imperialism dressed up as a panacea, the seeking of power for its own sake, instead of well considered analysis of our interests abroad. We are not the sort of country that can comfortably take on the role of imperial power without giving up something essential of it’s soul and our freedoms.]
Frankly, Stephen, as mentioned before, we don’t have any choice but to assume at least some degree of imperialistic attitude and assumption and it’s naïve to think otherwise. The last time there was one “super power” precedes current memory. The ‘problem’ is that the US is on the spot for defense of the world in general while defending our own land. Fortunately, the voters recognize they’re better served in this scenario with a forthright Republican at the helm.
I notice, Stephen you didn’t address the 5th point which was “it’s not the oil, it’s the water” issue. So I’ll end this with a repeat (along with the conclusion) which, by the way is an earlier posting from Ace of Spades:
o 5) Control of Iraq is not about the oil, it’s about the water.
To be able to alter and control the facts on the ground in the Middle East across a ten to twenty year period, Iraq is essential in a way that again becomes obvious from merely looking at the map of the country. It was popular among the Left to say, in the buildup to the war, that “It’s About the Oil.” As is often the case, they were wrong. Oil is an important resource in Iraq but it is not the most important resource that Iraq controls.
What Iraq has that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia do not is not oil, but fresh water. In fact, Iraq has almost all of the fresh water in the region. It is water that determines life in the Middle East and there’s not a lot of it. The two largest rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, flow down the core of Iraq before bending towards Iran to share those waters briefly with Iran before meeting the ocean. No other country gets so much of a taste unless Iraq agrees. Iran has little fresh water as does Syria. Saudi Arabia has almost none. It is one thing to control oil fields. The wealth from that resource can buy desalination plants that give your expanding population the water to survive. If the oil tap is cut off, the economies of the west would begin to wither and die within three months. Cut off water and populations begin to die within three days.
Given these five reasons derived from the facts on the ground in late 2004, it would be suicidal for the United States to withdraw militarily from Iraq for at least ten years and probably 20. The level of forces needed to maintain control can fluctuate as the situation dictates, but the presence of significant forces is a necessity.
This is not to say that the United States will not withdraw, but only to underscore the price of such foolishness. The United States has, through bad politics, misdirection and clouded thinking, made monstrous errors of judgment in the past and is certainly capable of doing so in the future. It is only to say that should we, through a posturing for mere political power at home, cede military control of Iraq and hence the Middle East before the matter of Islamic fundamentalism is settled, and the Islamic cultures fully assimilated into the 21st century, departure early would only require our subsequent return. And that return will be far more bloody and necessary than anything seen to date in what is still a brush-fire war.

In future, Counter, I suggest two things: use blockquotes or other formatting. It’s easier on the eyes. And two, provide a link for your work to attribute it. Copyright is serious stuff.

But…

Look, people can start hideous things for legitimate reasons. al-Quaeda arises from legitimate gripes about the destruction of arab high culture and piety, about it’s subjugation to western powers, but its tactics and evolved worldview put it beyond the pale.

Democracy is important because al-Qaeda and their supporters portray us as hypocrites, as power-hungry crusaders. The more we do to make that a charge the average Arab rolls there eyes at, the better.

Stephen, it’s a function of the election cycle that has us in slo-mo; what will accelerate our military is an attack on the homeland before the election or Bush in office November 3rd.

We don’t have the time to wait for Bush to get himself re-elected or for some terrorists event to occur. It is unacceptable that Bush put our national security and the integrity of that region, that country at risk merely to ensure a re-election win. Bush pledged to defend this country against it’s enemies, not his political opponents.

Bush has used the War on Terrorism to grab power, to support his political survival by creating a cult of personality around his supposed toughness against terrorism. This despite a number of glaring errors. Kerry would not be the challenger he was if there were not legitimate problems to make him a preferable alternative. Something had to happen to drop Bush from about 90% approval ratings. Kerry can only account for the most recent slippage.

Besides, the real issue is, who’s calling who traitors and enemies? We may allege corruption and incompetence, but we certainly are not saying your people are willfully betraying this country. It’s not us who resurrected McCarthyism to suit. If we were the ones who started all this, then ask yourself: Why did the Democrats need Dean? Why did they need a prophet in the desert like that to get them to see that it was possible to challenge Bush and not get struck by lightning for the blasphemy.

As for this:
“but if the insurgents and citizens of Iraq have the will, they will continue to resist us, and they will win.”

It’s a conditional statement. If-then. I go on to say that the smart thing to do is make our interests theirs, to make it to where they will chose what we want them to choose of their own free will. I’m actually being optimistic, since I say there’s a way to win. a defeatist would say we can only lose. I’m saying simply that unless we come to an understanding with most Iraqis, we will find it impossible to simply bludgeon the population into submission.

As for justifying our actions, that’s critical. We don’t need other countries raising their defenses. The more we play the unreasonable aggressor, the more B.S. we’ll be wading through to do what we need to do. I mean, go out and tell the average person that we’ll be hanging around for twenty years. See how few people you leave unalarmed.

As for Iran and Syria, all the more reason not to get caught between them fighting an insurgency.

Frankly, Stephen, as mentioned before, we don’t have any choice but to assume at least some degree of imperialistic attitude and assumption and it’s naïve to think otherwise. The last time there was one “super power” precedes current memory. The ‘problem’ is that the US is on the spot for defense of the world in general while defending our own land. Fortunately, the voters recognize they’re better served in this scenario with a forthright Republican at the helm. I notice, Stephen you didn’t address the 5th point which was “it’s not the oil, it’s the water” issue. So I’ll end this with a repeat (along with the conclusion) which, by the way is an earlier posting from Ace of Spades:

The paragraph is awash with assumptions. Do we need to be imperialists? Are the voters as fond of Bush’s approach as you think they are? And is water really going to be an acceptable reason to control Iraq outside of wonkish circles?

Reality is, the War in Iraq is one of Bush’s weakest points. There’s a reason why Bush avoided mention of the details of our situation in Iraq, of the case for war that got us there, and the current level of violence there. Even during the convention bounce, Bush’s numbers on Iraq remained low.

Don’t underestimate the Democrats. We’re not as stupid, cowardly, or wrong as you think we are.