Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The only presidential candidate to talk about bringing back a draft is John Kerry. The Bush administration has said repeatedly it has no plans to reinstitute the draft. There is a proposed bill to reinstate the draft currently going nowhere in Congress. The Senate sponsor is Democrat Fritz Hollings. Democrat Charlie Rangel sponsors it in the House. No Republicans have signed on so it won’t go anywhere unless Democrats take control of Congress and John Kerry wins the presidency, since they are the only guys talking about it.

Sen. Hagel wrote,

The U.S. force structure and resources should match the security and foreign policy commitments required for the next generation. That may require some form of mandatory national service. If in fact the United States is engaged in a generational war, then all of us should share the burdens, sacrifices, and costs of this national challenge.

In any case, Hagel’s Republican foreign policy bears no resemblence to Bush’s foreign policy.

Bush’s radical foreign policy experiment, from a conservative point of view, is disastrous.

BTW, Kerry says, “I will give us a foreign policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a draft for this country.”

It was Sen. Hagel (R) that first raised the spectre of reinstating the draft and rattled Congress to attend current policy in light of it. I wrote an article about it when it occured here at WatchBlog some time ago.

Nice post AP. While I totally disagree with your “Kerry is the answer to all our problems” analogy, I do agree that this administration has totally flip-flopped on this issue.

The Bush administration has said repeatedly it has no plans to reinstitute the draft.

I believe that’s called “being in denial”.

American,
Stability is not always desireable. A stable political government in which suppresion of personal rights, starvation, and genocide should not be sought after or admired by myself or any other sane American. The political government labeled above was a very general description of the conditions pre Iraqi Freedom. This post is assuming that you consider pre-war Iraq to have been stable, otherwise why would you denounce President Bush for creating “instability in the Middle East”?

In conclusion, the “stability” of the Middle East was at the price of personal freedom and, commonly, one’s life. As an American spectator, I would rather see an unstable government working towards a Democratically stable goernment, than a dictatorship.

Semper-
Making Iraq stable once again is a necessity.

If we don’t make it stable, then Iraq will be ill-suited to maintaining its status as a democracy. It will also be ill suited to maintaining territorital and political integrity. I don’t believe that “Iraq as a client state of Iran” sounds like all that attractive of a deal, nor does “terrorist haven”. A weak state in Iraq will be a great gift to our enemies.

Freedom without a stable government is flying in a damaged jet. Sure you’re enjoying your liberty from restraints, but only until you hit bottom. If what we neglect in this war leads to a second dictator taking power, or our enemies exploiting Iraq as a safe haven, then toppling Saddam Hussein will have been an exercise in futility. This is why Democrats say they disagree with the way President Bush toppled Saddam Hussein. By doing it they way they did, the people in the Bush administration have endangered the long term goals of making Iraq free, and winning the war on terrorism.

Stability is not always desireable.

That depends on how you define “desirable”, doesn’t it?

The United States has traditionally propped up dictators in the Middle East to stabilize the region. It’s a vital strategic area for our country. In fact, it wasn’t too long ago that Saddam was the darling of the conservatives because he was seen as a stabilizing influence in the region and a check on Islamic radicals in Iran.

Is an Iraq innocent of Saddam desirable? Of course. But now we’re faced with instability in the region (and the world) in the form of increased terrorism, weakened alliances, and $50/barrel oil.

Is a Saddam-free Iraq more desirable than strong alliances that guarantee American supremacy? Is it more desirable than confronting a newly hostile Islamic movement as opposed to fighting small terrorist groups? Is it more desirable than sustained high energy prices which lead to global recession?

Sure, getting rid of Saddam is desirable. But “desirable” is subjective. Is it worth diplomatic isolation at a time when we need every country’s full cooperation to fight terrorism? Is it worth sparking a wave of active anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world? Is it worth record high energy prices impeding our economic growth?

And finally, you have to ask, could removing Saddam have been done in such a way as to mitigate the undesirable consequences?

You can say ‘what’s done is done, let’s move on’ - and to an extent, that’s true - but you also have to question the judgement of administration leaders who, knowing the likely consequences (there was no shortage of diplomats, military leaders, and thinkers pointing them out before the war) would still pursue such a radical foreign policy.

Is it worth sparking a wave of active anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world?

Since when has this anti-US sentiment NOT been present in the Muslim world? Also, Muslim is a term describing one who actively participates in the Islamic religion. You’re pitting the US against a religion… I gaurentee you that not everyone in the ARABIC world hates the US. To state otherwise would be too general.

In fact, it wasn’t too long ago that Saddam was the darling of the conservatives because he was seen as a stabilizing influence in the region and a check on Islamic radicals in Iran.

Just because you’ve raised a dog since it was a puppy doesn’t mean you don’t put it down when it bites you.

Making Iraq stable once again is a necessity.

I agree. I don’t agree with AP’s statement that instability in the Middle East is a disastrous Bush mistake. It bothers me when people blame Iraq on Bush because they always seem to overlook the 49 other nations that also participated in the occupation.

And finally, you have to ask, could removing Saddam have been done in such a way as to mitigate the undesirable consequences?

Last time I checked, Clinton had 8 years to do it. The UN tried to do it and couldn’t enforce their own resolutions, specifically 1441. How long is enough time? How many mass graves are you willing to stomach until you’re motivated to decisive action? 1000+ soldiers died in Iraq after major combat operations ended. According to this report 400+ TIMES that number of civilians died under Saddam’s watch. The buck stops with President Bush right? Well that holds true for Saddam. The buck stops at his desk as it does with our President and there are 400 THOUSAND more “bucks” on Saddam’s than Bush’s. I also shouldn’t have to remind everyone here that members of the armed forces fight of their own accord, unlike the deaths of 4,000 prisoners murdered at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984.

Resolution 1441

Is a Saddam-free Iraq more desirable than strong alliances that guarantee American supremacy?

I don’t know American. I guess it all depends on how many civilian lives you’re willing to “sacrifice” for our supremecy. Oh, but they are an ocean away and, after all, they aren’t our civilians.

FYI. Muslim World is NOT Arab. There are Muslims in Asia, Africa, Europe and even the US. And they DO hate the Bush Administration. Even countries like Turkey and Malaysia who tend to like us dislike us now.

FYI. Over 25,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in less than 2 years of War and Occupation. At this rate, the US will exceed Saddam’s Record in about 4 years. It always amuses me that no US Politician or Media would mention that.

Aldous.

Since when has this anti-US sentiment NOT been present in the Muslim world?

semper, there has been some anti-US sentiment in the Middle East since the 70s. The US invasion and occupation of Iraq is rapidly making it worse and sparking it in places like Indonesia and Malaysia which had a generally favorable opinion of the US before March 2003.

they always seem to overlook the 49 other nations that also participated in the occupation

That’s a question of legitimacy. Is the US-led coalition’s illegal invasion of Iraq more legitimate than a UN sanctioned NATO operation in accordance with international law?

Coalition fans feel that any military action the US takes is self-evidently good - because “duh” we’re the United States. Others in the world don’t see it that way.

As Bush takes great pains to point out, Iraq was not an “imminent threat”. The invasion was not preemptive. Rather the invasion was based on the principle that Saddam would most likely, someday in the future, try to acquire WMD and possibly use them on the US or Israel. It was a preventative invasion.

The problem is, since it’s not absolutely certain the threat would ever have materialize (Saddam might have got hit by a bus crossing the street, or a military coup might have succeeded) a preventative war is indistinguishable from a war of aggression.

In the late 40s and 50s, hawks encouraged Truman to launch a preventative war against the USSR while we still had a clear nuclear advantage. Truman said in a radio address,

“We do not believe in aggression or preventative war. Such a war is the weapon of dictators, not free democratic countries like the United States.”

During the Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy was being urged to send the US military into Cuba to prevent the buildup of missiles. The administration issued a statement that said a preventative strike was,

“…contrary to our traditions, … a course of action that would cut directly athwart everything we have stood for during our national history, and condemn us as hypocrites in the opinion of the world.”

During the crisis, JFK referred to the preventative war option as “this particular Pearl Harbor recommendation.”

Even Bush Sr.’s national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft wrote,

Part of the Bush administration believes that as a superpower we must take advantage of this opportunity to change the world for the better, and we don’t need to go out of our way to accommodate alliances, partnerships, or friends in the process, because that would be too constraining. [But relying almost solely on ad hoc] coalitions of the willing is fundamentally, fatally flawed. As we’ve seen in the debate about Iraq, it’s already given us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we’re paying a very high price for that image. If we get to the point where everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye because we’re so obnoxious, then we’ll be totally hamstrung in the war on terror.

As we can see by Bush’s failed efforts to enlist the aid of our traditional allies, that’s already happened,

“Most people want to help Iraq but not in a way that rewards Bush,” says a senior EU diplomat.

You can talk about the other countries in the coalition, but they don’t give legitimacy to the use of US power like the UN, NATO, and international law does. It’s the difference between vigilantes and a lawfully deputized posse.

Last time I checked, Clinton had 8 years to do it. The UN tried to do it and couldn’t enforce their own resolutions

But we also didn’t spark a rapidly growing anti-US Islamic movement, we didn’t weaken our preeminent moral and diplomatic position in the world, and we didn’t cause instability and $50/barrel oil prices possibly leading to a global recession.

Who knows, Saddam might have got hit by a bus, and everyone would have wondered what all the hullabaloo was about. President Bush said the threat was NOT imminent. Inspectors were crawling all over Iraq. The IAEA had already said Iraq had no nuclear weapons or programs. There was time to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam within the framework of international law and our alliance structure.

I guess it all depends on how many civilian lives you’re willing to “sacrifice” for our supremecy. Oh, but they are an ocean away and, after all, they aren’t our civilians.

That’s a question we all need to ask ourselves isn’t it? Was invading Iraq worth the economic effects on my family? Was invading Iraq worth increasing the terrorist threat to my family and loved ones? Could it have been done in such a way as to lessen the risks that were well known to the Bush administration?

Aldous,
I used “Arabic” to describe Iraq as they are Arabic. FYI. Also, who are you to speak for every active member of the Muslim faith around the world? Do you know them all? No? Then don’t generalize to me about how much “they” hate the US. FYI.

Is the US-led coalition’s illegal invasion of Iraq more legitimate than a UN sanctioned NATO operation in accordance with international law?

Illegal invasion of Iraq? There has been no definite conclusion to this question, as it is still being hotly debated. While you may express your opinion that it was illegal, do not quote it as fact.

That’s a question we all need to ask ourselves isn’t it? Was invading Iraq worth the economic effects on my family?

I dunno AP, is that brand name cotton shirt you’re wearing worth the forced labor of sweatshots in third-world countries? Are the products, such as toothpaste, that you use on a daily basis worth child-labor and economic slavery of other countries? People always complain about not having a job. Has anyone ever considered how many jobs Nike could provide AMERICAN citizens with if they based their manufacturing on US soil instead of China? Don’t complain to me about your economic hardship when citizens of the US are among the richest in the world.

Illegal invasion of Iraq? There has been no definite conclusion to this question

It’s all about perception. Who is more credible in the eyes of the citizens of the rest of the world (and half of America), Bush or Annan?

It may well be that the invasion was legal based on some interpretation of international law (OJs a free man, right?), but that cat’s out of the bag. It’s something Bush going to have to defend for the rest of his life.

Don’t complain to me

No complaining - certainly not to you - just asking some free-thinker questions. You’ve got some pretty good questions yourself.

And you failed to address the other two,

Was invading Iraq worth increasing the terrorist threat to my family and loved ones? Could it have been done in such a way as to lessen the risks that were well known to the Bush administration?