dbmcgaw (anonymous) says...

Craig - You'll be getting lots of rants from the knee-jerk reactionaries on this one, largely on the strength of the fact that you pull no punches. Given that, let me second your comments and commend you for the courage to face the facts unflinchingly.

As a combat veteran of Vietnam, I have some experience in that theater, and am all too aware of the flawed logic used by Bush to justify his agenda. (I have heard it argued that we should have dropped the bomb on Hanoi, but if we had, we would have had WWIII on our hands and quite probably none of us would be around now to argue the point.) Our failure in Vietnam was not in the manner of our combat, but in allowing ourselves to be enmired in that mess in the first place with no clear justification and no clear vision of what we hoped to gain.

The exact same is true of Iraq. While we haven't lost as many soldiers there (yet), our justification for being there is - if anything - shakier than for being in Vietnam.

The thing that amazes and appalls me is that Bush - who patently lied to us and to Congress to justify his preemptive war - has so far avoided impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors far more serious than the libidinous indiscretions of Bill Clinton.

The phrase "when Clinton lied, nobody died" reveals a lot about our misplaced priorities and what we as a nation choose to punish. Clinton was wrong, but what he did had no bearing on his job performance or our national integrity. Bush's lies, on the other hand, combined with his incompetence and obstinacy, have had a serious, severe, deleterious, and long-lasting effect on our psyche and our relations with the rest of the world.

August 27, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

elplayero (anonymous) says...

If President Bush made a mistake in his speech, it was in falling into the leftist trap of linking the war in Iraq with the Vietnam War.

It looks increasingly like a win for the good guys in Iraq. (That means us, Craig)

Iraq is no Vietnam.

Our victory against despotism (and our impending victory against Radical Islam) in Iraq is having enormously positive consequences. Consider our new alliance with the French and Western Europe against the Iran’s nuclear ambitions. (Remember, the French voted for Sarkozy, the candidate who was outspoken in his support of America.) Consider yesterday’s accord between the leadership of the various factions in Iraq. All sides are uniting against Al-Qaeda and its unspeakable atrocities. That means they are siding with us. The enemy of my enemy…

None of this would have been possible without American resolve and the enormous sacrifices of our volunteer fighting force.

The President was correct to point out the consequences of retreating from the battle against tyranny. Why not look at our experience in Korea? Did we win or is it a quagmire? We are still there 50 years later.

In the south: 49 million people living free in a trillion dollar economy. In the North: 23 million people living in a .04 trillion dollar economy on the edge of starvation. Without American resolve what would the entire Korean Peninsula look like? What would Europe look like. Remember the Berlin wall.

Americans will not vote for a defeatist president next year. Hillary is already hedging her bets.

August 28, 2007 at 4:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I believe there's some truth in what you've said about the lack of paralells with Vietnam. There are some, but not enough to make it as valid as Korea and the U.S. in the Phillippines after the Spanish American War.

What we need to assess is what happens when we leave. I'll assume that it will be as soon as Congress cuts of the funding after the Patreus report. What's going to be left?

I found an interesting piece about Iran's view of what will happen. The link follows:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?...

What would/should the U.S. position for the Middle-East be if Iran fills the gap they are beginning to see in Iraq?

What/would/should the U.S. position be vis a vis the Kurds in northern Iraq who have begun building a stable region? What do you suppose will happen to them if Iran "fills the gap?"

What do you envision happening when a nuclear Iran gains an even firmer foothold in the region? Are you willing to take the risk of what that might entail?

What is your preferred outcome for the majority of Iraqis who have no sectarian interest and have been loyal to us? What do you suppose will happen to them in the intervening period from the vacuum occupied by terrorists and the "stability" Iran will bring to the equation?

What is your proposal for building a stable Iraq?

Do you truly believe that terror won't escalate if we fail in Iraq?

This sounds a lot to me like a time my wife and I did some camping along the Delaware Water Gap in northwest NJ. A small contingent from our larger group decided to do some rafting down the river. They got started in the late afternoon, despite the advice of a park ranger not to. My wife and I and the rest of the group waited anxiously for them to return. Finally, at about midnight we contacted the rangers who began a search for them. About the time the rangers showed up at our campsite the missing group came climbing back up the cliff overlooking the river. They were cold (it was about 38%), they were both relieved and still fearful, and exhausted. One of the people in the group recounted to me that one of the younger members of the group kept enumerating reason after reason as to why they should never have gone in the first place. After a couple of hours our friend had had enough. He told the kid to shut up and move forward.

I think that it's easy to be a critic when disaster seems iminent. It's a time when critics seem absolutely brilliant and believe that every reason they give for failure is beyond reproach.

My final question is - What are the details of your plan to salvage the situation before it becomes even worse than it is now?

August 28, 2007 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Craig

I'd be interested in your response to the following excerpts from Robert Tracinski's piece published in the L.A. Times:

"If the architects of the Vietnam War in the Johnson administration can be criticized (as Moyar does) for not doing enough to win the war, the later anti-war left actively pursued American defeat and humiliation as their goal. They didn't merely want us to withdraw; they wanted us to lose, and they did whatever was necessary to make sure that happened."

"This is the wider Vietnam story that the left has never understood. They have always regarded Vietnam and Watergate as the glory days they long to relive. It was a time in which their political faction was temporarily triumphant, hounding two hated presidents out of office in disgrace."

"Samuel Johnson is supposed to have said that nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of a hanging. What will the American people do when they are required to meditate seriously, for the first time, on the full, concrete ramifications of a defeat in Iraq? What will they think when they hear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasting of Iran's eagerness to fill the "power vacuum" that will open up in Iraq after the "collapse" of "the political power of the occupiers"?"

The person he cites is Mark Moyar who recently wrote a book titled "Triumph Forsaken - The Vietnam War, 1964-1975."

These are difficult times, much like the 60's and 70's. I lived through that period,, served a tour in Vietnam and watched the aftermath. I saw that we had no real aim for victory under Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Robert McNamara, or Henry Kissinger. And, yes, I did see the left relish the idea of defeat. I don't know how much of what Mark Moyar wrote is true, but I believe he's absolutely right about that.

I saw what happened to those Vietnamese who refused to accept the "liberation" offered by the North Vietnamese, who violated Kissinger's Paris Peace Accord by invading the south (done principally because they knew the U.S.wouldn't intervene). I saw the disgraceful way we abandoned hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who had cast their lots with us I saw what happened in Cambodia.

I don't think my thoughts make me a "knee jerk reactionary," as one commenter said. I'd just like to know what the strategy of the left in America is going forward.

August 29, 2007 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...

I am not going to address contrasts between the Iraq war and Korea or WW II; it would be vacuous. I think we agreed that there is no valid comparison with Vietnam, too. The only conflict with which there is the ability to draw comparisons is the Gulf War, after which Cheney said that going into Iraq would have been a quagmire. He was right.
There are always encouraging things happening in Iraq, certainly. To say that we are “winning”, though, is a point of disagreement. First, what version of “win” are we talking about? That seems to be a moving target for this administration. And that is part of our problem – there has been no steady focus. At first it was WMD’s. Then it was 9/11. Then, it shifted to affiliations with al Qaeda. When all of that proved wrong, it became something about democracy. Now, we are wallowing in a civil war and winning has, for many people, become a goal of getting our troops out alive and not maimed.
Yes, it is good to see that President Sarkozy of France is taking a strong leadership stance where France had none before. It is also good to see that there is a hand of goodwill extended in our direction. I hope we grasp it. But do not confuse that with widespread acceptance of our strategies in the past few years. That would be a bad mistake. Sarkozy – and the people of France - recognize that they must make changes in their approach to world politics. We must recognize our own failures and learn to make changes, ourselves.
Within Iraq, there are also always encouraging signs. A couple days ago several disparate leaders came to some agreement. A day later, there were huge cracks in it. Their Parliament is not in session. They were not speaking from consensus but out of hope. Hope is good but manifestation requires more. The PM, al Maliki, has been ineffective and given to digressive strategies. He has been unable to pull together a solid coalition within the Iraqi government. And, yet, we have continued to support him in spite of this.
I’ve no idea what the American people are going to elect next year. That is still a very large question which will not be answered until February, at least. Too, what is a “defeatist”? Does a willingness to withdraw from an un-winnable situation constitute defeatism? Or does it constitute realism? Keep in mind that President Eisenhower recognized that we could not win against the North Koreans. He shut down the war within three months of taking office by simply saying we would no longer fight it. That strategy could be used in Iraq, too, and perhaps they would benefit as did our allies, the South Koreans.

August 29, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...

Netloafer: No, you are not a knee jerk reactionary. Your comments are sincere and reasonable and I will attempt some response.

Like you, I lived through that period of the 60’s and 70’s, and I did so as a liberal even if I was a kid at the time. I joined the Marines in ’69 for four years and did my part, too. That was my liberal reaction to what was going on. I enlisted.

I do not think that liberals (in general) had a desire, conscious or unconscious, to see America defeated. WW II and Korea had been initiated and led by liberals, remember, and it was a liberal frame of mind that got us into the Vietnam mess to begin with. What did happen to liberals during the late 60’s, though, is that we were coopted by the crazies who were represented by people like Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, and Jerry Rubin. Too, liberals like myself “signed on” for civil rights and social rights reasons, not for a war. That was something we had been led to believe would serve America’s interests, not serve to defeat us. After a time, many of the liberals I knew became discouraged by the war and even believed they had been wrong in their beliefs about liberalism. Some of them did, I think, hope for defeat in the war simply as a validation of their own wrong-headedness.

Liberals and conservatives are both people who are involved and thinking – and we are both patriotic people who want America to do well. We disagree with each other over how that should happen and it is that disagreement which, in part, provides the energy and intellect of our greatness. I believe that, over the last couple decades, we have become so disagreeable to each other the positive nature of disagreement has been lost in the angst of what seems to be a mutual hatred which can only end in disaster. There used to be (at times) a “loyal opposition” component to governance which was respected and involved. Even Roosevelt, who known to bull his way toward his own goals, included conservatives in major decisions involving national interests (though not social programs, particularly).

CAF

August 29, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Craig

I still don't know what your way forward is. Should we withdraw completely? If we're going to leave troops there, how many will be enough? Do you favor a partition plan, with three sectarian entities (Kurd, Shia, and Sunni)? What would your option be if Iraq falls into the geopolitical orbit of Iran? How would a policy of containment work in that part of the Middle East when the terrorists are clearly determined to take the war to us?

I agree with you that there used to be a time in this country when was such a thing as loyal oppisition. I grew up as a Democrat and believed firmly in the ideals of JFK's 'New frontier." Over the years my political preference has changed to being center-right, but I've never abandoned the first principles. That's why I believe that victory in Iraq is the best option. I understand the potential cost, but as JFK said, we must accept the price and burden that being freedom's principal defender entails.

August 29, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...

The “strategy of the left” is not really a strategy. Liberalism, as it exists today, is very fragmented simply because there are so many different and wide ranging issues which each of us see differently.
For instance, I am a capitalist and support a business oriented approach to social problems where that seems possible - a conservative approach. However, I also support a single payer health care system similar to those in Europe which are so successful and, often enough, surprisingly inexpensive. That makes me liberal.
Iraq poses a big problem for liberals simply because we do not necessarily agree amongst ourselves what should be done.
My own thought on Iraq is that we should get out. I have concerns, though, which I would like to see addressed. One is what netloafer has mentioned a couple times, how those Iraqis who worked with us will be treated if we leave. The consequences to “collaborators” are often enough dire, whether it is French people who worked with the Vichy government in the 40’s or Vietnamese people who helped us in the 70’s.
This is a different situation, though, and making comparisons to those wars is dicey. Here is why.
The new rulers of Iraq will be Shia. They owe their new dominance to our invasion and military victory. Those who cooperated with us were, actually, promoting the transfer of power from Baathist (mostly Sunni) to Shia. When the new government cracks down on dissidents, the dissidents will be defined as those who oppose Shiism or the new government specifically. They will be mainly Sunnis and former Baathists. Honestly, those who can show they supported the invasion and the interim governments may escape entirely even though their affiliations would indicate otherwise.
The (gravest) danger period is this civil war into which they have already entered. Extreme groups on both sides – all the multiple sides, I should say – make this period particularly horrendous, but this conflict will happen and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it as should be evident by what is happening. It can be shortened, though, if we just stand aside. We become complicit in the consequences, to be sure, but we suffer that complicity already. Seriously, it appears that nearly a million Iraqi civilians are dead because of our invasion and incompetence. That is a heavy burden, and it is going to get worse regardless of what we do now.

CAF

August 29, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, you ask too many questions to be answered all at once. I am trying.
No, I do not think we should withdraw all our troops, but I do believe we should withdraw more than half of them and do so by early spring of ’08. The rest should be moved to bases where they would provide training and limited support services including limited combat against mutual enemies. Our air forces should stand down as much as possible. We should support the government of Iraq as much as we can and still force them to carry the burden of combat, not our troops.
Yes, I am speaking vaguely. No, I cannot do otherwise because of time and space limitations and the futility of a rhetorical statement.
Frankly, I think of Iran as a potential ally. Their interests and ours coincide in Iraq. I believe the antagonism that exists between us is fueled mainly by the Bush administration’s heavy handed approach to them. By 2000 it appeared that we were about to resume diplomatic relations at minimum levels, but then within a couple years, Bush labeled them members of an “axis of evil”. That was purely stupid.
The Iranian people would prefer, I believe, a more secular, more liberal government. The totalitarian reign of the Ayatollahs might actually be nearing an end if we would just stop yammering on and on and listen a little. We might even be able to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. But to do that, we must back down on our rhetoric and enter into diplomatic talks to develop trust and, hopefully, convince them by our own actions to elect a more moderate government and throw their astonishing president out of office.
Both the Iranians and we want a stable Iraqi government. I believe Hakim (SCIRI) and others Shia leaders in Iraq want to govern independently of Iran and that Iran would have no choice but to accept that. Read up on Shiism and its tenets of governance. What is happening in Iran is aberrance, something that is against the more liberal approach it should have taken. Shia teachings are that government should be secular but overseen in a judicial kind of way by the Ayatollahs. Yes, it becomes a Shia government, but society and day to day governance is secular and individual freedom is respected. That is what is taught in their literature as well as their overall practice when extremism is not present in force. The Shia have lived peacefully for centuries with followers of other faiths.
Aside from personalities such as Moqtada al Sadr, most Shia leaders in Iraq are fairly moderate, including Hakim and al Sistani. I think those leaders will prevail if given a chance.

CAF

August 29, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...

One last comment today, netloafer, and then you or someone else can have the floor: Some years ago George Will defined a government as that national entity which has a monopoly on violence. If we look at Iraq in this light, we can say that we “win” when the Iraqi government is stable enough that it can claim such a monopoly. They are certainly not to that point yet, and there is no sign that they are even close or getting closer. One might easily insist that the goal is receding farther and farther. That redefines the question, “what should we do?” What we should do is make it possible for them to take over the making of violence in the name of national unity.

Right now, we have the upper hand on violence even though we have no monopoly. We are attempting to claim the right to that monopoly, though, and that is one of the reasons there are so many others fighting there. Were we to begin to withdraw, one of the main reasons some of the fighters in Iraq are fighting would become moot. They would have to either lay down their arms or come up with a new reason for their belligerence. The insurgents have claimed to be fighting against US forces. However, we know or suspect they are also fighting against some Shia militias. If that is the case, then our withdrawal only clears a view of the lines of demarcation. Who is “enemy” becomes who is against the government elected by the Iraqi people.

Al Maliki has said recently that American forces are needed in Iraq until stability is attained. That is creepy because Maliki, himself, contributes to instability and, to stay in office, instability is glue to him. Since we need Maliki gone to achieve stability, withdrawal solves the problem since it provides additional stability if only by removing the fulcrum to violence for numerous fighting parties. Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia must then declare war on someone else if we are not there. The insurgency should collapse and, if it does not, then new lines will become clear. The divisions within the Shia community also will be seen and understood. Right now, we are the ones who are clouding the issues and making it impossible to move forward. If we are gone, they are forced to see it differently.

I would be in favor of doing that, leaving some numerous combat troops in place to be used in coming days, but not under our present leadership which has proven itself incompetent and lacking in integrity. With those qualities, I believe we are doomed to failure and that the evidence is clear to us even now. I am simply unsupportive of any further involvement without a change of government leadership here.

CAF

August 29, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Craig

The reason I ask so many questions is that I don't see any politicians or pundits on the left who have answers. About as close as it comes is Joe Biden, who proposes a partition of Iraq. At times I see it as a reasonable alternative, especially since the Kurds have done such a remarkable job of reconstruction in northern Iraq. But, then see that the real flaw in such a plan is that the country would be divided up along religious lines. I just think that would be an explosive fix. Sooner or later.

The only other strategy I hear from the other candidates is withdrawal. Even Hillary Clinton, who triangulates, seems to change her opinions based on the response of the left wing of the party.

I don't think that the mullahs in Iran are going to give up power by way of the ballot box. They claimed Iran in a revolution and they will only give up by way of another revolution.. Until that happens I see no meaningful avenue of dialogue availalble with Iran. I certainly don't think that would happen prior to April, when most who are calling for a pullout are calling for our troops to be gone.

I've done a lot of independent study on Islam, particularly in comparative religion classes while I was doing my graduate work. Unless there's been some change, the SCIRI have historically supported the Iranian view of governance. Some intelligence reports from the region indicate that they are today getting support from the Iranian mullahs.

I think that the Iranians would like stability in Iraq, but I don't believe their intent is as benevolent as you believe it is.

I can recommend a couple of pieces of reading - "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis" and "Desert Queen" (the name of the author escapes me right now). It's the story of Gertrude Bell, who played a pivotal role in the partition of the Middle East after the First World War.

August 29, 2007 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Netloafer, thanks for the book title "Desert Queen." Sounds like a good read for those who want to understand more about this region. An article I read not long ago discusses how after WW I, when drawing the boundaries of what would become today's Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, and Lebanon, the west paid little attention to the ancient tribal, ethnic, and religious differences that are at the root of much of the bloodshed in that region today. Instead Europe paid little attention to Wilson's ideas of letting the region develop their own governments because they were more interested in access to oil. Let me just add what I have honestly believed all along. The west, in trying to impose its own version of democratic order, is not welcome in an area of the world where the inhabitants have such a deep and profound faith in a holy law that it governs all divisions of life, including government and politics. Historian David Fromkin recalls that after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe struggled for 1,500 years over what form of Christianity to follow and whether Europeans should be ruled by popes or kings. Why should the Arabs be any different? The diverse peoples of Iraq must now somehow come together to create new political identities for themselves despite the lack of strong leadership. I'm afraid it may be too late in view of all the sectarian violence and civil war. Iran waits.

August 29, 2007 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Create

It's an interesting read. I went upstairs and found the author - Janet Wallach.

There's also another book about Getrude Bell titled "Gertrude Bell, Queen of the Desert, Shaper of Nations" by Georgia Howell.

She was a brilliant woman, a supporter of T.E. Lawrence. One of the interesting things I learned was that she drew up a map of what to do with the remains of the Ottoman Empire on a piece of tracing paper.

You're right. It may be too late. But I think it has much more to do with our political will than it does with events in the region.

August 29, 2007 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I'm posting a couple of sections of an op-ed by Peggy Noonan in today's Wall Street Journal. She's calling for national consensus and calling for both sides of the war issue to come together so that we can ensure that the outcome in Iraq will in the end succeed. I think her words were very wise and deserve some contemplation:

"From the pro-war forces, the surge supporters and those who supported the Iraq invasion from the beginning, what is needed is a new modesty of approach, a willingness to admit it hasn't quite gone according to plan. A moral humility. Not meekness--great powers aren't helped by meekness--but maturity, a shown respect for the convictions of others."

"What we often see instead, lately, is the last refuge of the adolescent: defiance. An attitude of Oh yeah? We're Lincoln, you're McClellan. We care about the troops and you don't. We care about the good Iraqis who cast their lot with us. You'd just as soon they hang from the skids of the last helicopter off the embassy roof. They have been called thuggish. Is this wholly unfair? "

"The antiwar forces, the surge opponents, the "I was against it from the beginning" people are, some of them, indulging in grim, and mindless, triumphalism. They show a smirk of pleasure at bad news that has been brought by the other team. Some have a terrible quaking fear that something good might happen in Iraq, that the situation might be redeemed. Their great interest is that Bushism be laid low and the president humiliated. They make lists of those who supported Iraq and who must be read out of polite society. Might these attitudes be called thuggish also?"

She sums up OUR problem this way:

"And here's the problem. The president's warnings are realistic. He's right. At the end of the day we can't just up and leave Iraq. That would only make it worse. And it is not in the interests of America or the world that it be allowed to get worse."

August 31, 2007 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...

Are you seriously suggesting, Netloafer, that we set aside the one reality that has been true, is true, and mostly likely will be true tomorrow, that the senior civilian leadership for this endeavor is incompetent and corrupt? I seriously and regretfully do not believe that the Bush / Cheney group can bring us to a point we can call progress with the mess they have created, let alone victotry.

I know that many good people, yourself included, hope that some compromise may take place that will let our troops win. Our troops have won, though, as much as such limited land forces may win. What we need is a political victory, and I do not believe that is possible under this leadership.

I think the best course of action for all of us is to get out and start doing it now.

CAF

August 31, 2007 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I consider the statement "Bush patently lied to us and to Congress" a patent lie in itself. Prove it.

Libya came clean and fessed up to a WMD program that nobody knew about, that was farther along than anyone would have guessed even if they had a suspicion. So I guess if you said 5 years ago that Libya had no WMD's, then that would make you a patent liar, right?

August 31, 2007 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )