MoveOnapalooza
Okay, I’ve been resisting the temptation to post on this, but after stlos post yesterday (which I agree with completely), I’m going to jump in by giving some myths and some facts.
Myth: The ad controversy was bad for Moveon.
Fact: MoveOn raised $500,000 yesterday, the most they’ve raised in a single day all year. And they may raise more from it:
For MoveOn’s supporters, the special notice from Bush may only serve to validate its confrontational style. “I think he just raised MoveOn several million more dollars,” said Erik Smith, a Democratic media consultant.
Myth: There is something wrong with criticizing a general while the nation is at war or in the process of occupying another country.
Fact: What is really wrong here is the president using a general as a political pitch man. This has little precedent in American history. It is more typical of countries ruled by military juntas. Keith Olbermann explains all of this right here.
Myth: The White House report delivered by Petraeus is changing people’s minds about the war. The MoveOn ads helped Bush.
Fact: Polls show little or no change in the public’s attitude towards the war.
Myth: MoveOn will be shy about running tough ads again.
Fact: They’ve already got a new one running against America’s ex-husband in Iowa, taking him to task for not showing up for Iraq Study Group meetings.
[ev type="youtube" data="zPj-bpIeSTU"][/ev]
Finally, let me highlight one reporter (the Post’s Jonathan Weisman) who was brave enough to call bs on the Senate’s sordid little sideshow yesterday:
Reston, Va.: Hi Jonathan, what are the repercussions for the Democrats who voted for that thing about moveon.org? How about the Republicans who voted against it? Guess most everyone will forget about it by the time the next election will show up anyway.
Jonathan Weisman: As for repercussions, how long can indigestion from eating red herring really last. This issue ticks me off, to be honest. The Senate is in the middle of a debate about the course of the war and we are talking about a yellowing ad in a newspaper (our rival to boot).
Related posts:
The worst of it is: the country’s drowning in “who gives a sh*t,” these days.
I mean, we care. But the Bush Administration has succeeded in reducing the level of outrage by increasing the audacity, something I’d not thought possible. You just can only scream the same crap over and over again so many times before you just exhaust yourself. In the opinion poll I ran at my site, I’ve been amazed at how many people just don’t really want to hear national news anymore.
But the reason is obvious: because there’s nothing more to say, and those charged with making it better can’t get it done.
There’s plenty of outraged voters out there. Just ask Jim Walsh.
I took part in the MoveOn.org conference call last night and gave $10 to the cause. If anything, this will make people unite behind MoveOn. If they think REAL Democrats and progressives are going to run away from the group, think again.
By the way, that’s the first contribution I’ve made to MoveOn. After this, I will make more. I’ve been a MoveOn member for over a year now, and this event shows what’s wrong with our government.
Here we are, at war, and they can’t pass real legislation regarding the war.
So what do they do? They pass a bill condeming MoveOn for their ad.
Now that’s disgusting.
Do you think I can get them to condemn that new UPS whiteboard ad they run during the football games? It ruins Sunday afternoons for millions of Americans. That’s not right while we’re at war.
The funny thing is that the Senate Democrats actually think that by condemning the MoveOn.org ad, they are somehow inoculating themselves from right wing attacks. Instead, they’ve emboldened these folks. Now, these folks know they can sidetrack discussion of the real issues, and make the Democrats apologize for any ridiculous claim they make.
I thought the Democrats were finally learning how to get the conversation back on track, when the Right steers it in their own perverse direction. Ugh!
Excellent analysis.
Exile:
I’m sure you are correct in your belief that the controversey helps MoveOn.org. I doubt seriously, however, that it helps the Democrat party win elections. You may find that the majority of people are “in the middle” and may be repelled by what could be viewed as slander.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with Gen. Petraeus or the Bush administration. I am, however, put off greatly by commentators, pundits, bloggers, etc., who resort to calling a liar anyone with whom they disagree.
You, for example, take every word from Gen. Baptiste at face value, while you are accusing Petraeus of shilling for Bush. Unless you have a military background, you have reached both conclusions on faith (and clearly based upon your political persuasion).
Bush, Petraeus, Crocker, Cheney, Republicans in general, (me too, I guess), we are not just wrong, we are all just liars or their apologists. Isn’t it possible to disagree in good faith?
Finally, what irks me most about the anti-Petraeus commentary is the suggestion that he would willingly sacrifice his troops in what he “knows” to be a futile effort. I’d like to have you ask Gen. Baptiste if he thinks Petraeus would do that.
Petraeus did not tell the full truth. How deliberate his deceptions were is not clear.
Obviously, neither Batiste nor Wesley Clark nor any of the other retired generals would say of Petraeus what MoveOn said. I’m not sure I’ve seen much from Batiste on Petraeus’s testimony though of course he disagrees with Petraeus that we should keep so many troops there. I have seen comment on this from Wes Clark, who said in an interview the other day that he thinks Petraeus is fooling himself about the whole thing.
You are wrong, John, that one needs a military background to have an opinion about Iraq. In fact, honestly, that kind of comment is beneath you. I think of you as someone I often disagree with but someone who respects healthy debate. You are essentially asking us to cede all of our power here to an unelected general. Unless you’d like to live in a military dictatorship, I don’t think that’s so wise.
And if I called Petraeus a liar, I take it back. I think he shilled in the sense that he put an unrealistically rosy spin on the whole thing, but I don’t think there was outright prevarication on his part.
Since when do you need a military background to talk POLITICS? Remember, the military doesn’t declare war in this country. A bunch of rich, white men (throughout our history) have told the lower to middle-class citizens of this country who choose to defend our country to go fight their battles for them.
The Senate DID make MoveOn stronger with their wasteful bill last night to condemn the group. To me, it made our government a huge laughing stock (as if it wasn’t before). Here they are, can’t pass a single piece of legislation to HELP our troops, such as allowing our troops to rest the same amount of time they serve, but they can pass a junk bill that spanks MoveOn for disagreeing with Petraeus and the Pimp-In-Chief, George W. Bush.
By the way, Batiste is a conservative Republican, last I knew. Of course, he is probably a TRUE CONSERVATIVE Republican. That is, he believes that America should think long and hard about going to war. That’s where he differs from the neo-cons, who think that we should go to war if there’s lead in our toys.
“You are wrong, John, that one needs a military background to have an opinion about Iraq.”
That being said, what gives the “President” the right to declare war if he has no military experience?
I don’t think Petraeus was a liar. I think that it’s half the administration and half him. Remember, Admiral Fallon called Petraeus a *ss kissing chickensh*t. And that came from a military man to another military man. I agree with Fallon. Petraeus seems like the type.
The real lying occurred before the war by this administration. Since then, we’ve been misinformed as to the REAL situation in Iraq. Well, if you get your info from Fox News (our state run media) you’ve been misinformed.
I should say one other thin, John, which is that I have spent a lot of time reading about the situation in Iraq. What I’ve read jibes with what Clark and Batiste say.
I agree that it isn’t useful for people to run around yelling opinions without thinking and reading on their own. That is something I try not to do. There are a variety of issues I keep quiet about because I feel that I haven’t done my research. But this isn’t one of them.
“That being said, what gives the “President†the right to declare war if he has no military experience?”
Great point. All he did was fly planes around the Deep South… allegedly. We won’t support guys like Wesley Clark to become president but we’ll elect draft dodgers and pampered politicians’ sons who got out of serving.
Hypocritical world we live in… that’s for sure.
It bears mentioning that, if you took the scientific approach, you would inevitably conclude that a majority of experts believe Baptiste and others, whereas even reports coming out of the Administrative Branch disagree with the general. Then there is the unmistakable fact that both General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker came up with the exact same set of bullet points, all of which totally disagree with consensus. It’s hard to wonder at such a remarkable coincidence out of a White House that has lived and died the sport of politics absent of conviction, and a Republican Party which has ever been beholden to it’s own distributed set of bullet points.
So, while in many instances, faith in our convictions does indeed color our assessments of the facts, in this case, I cannot agree at all.
Well, of course there’s plenty of outrage. That’s the whole point: plenty of outrage that does us no good because no one in power seems to care. The Republicans just keep raising the atrocities and the Democrats just triangulate.
Actually, all we can prove for certain is that he showed up for the free dental once in a while.
The overriding point here is that the military answers to civilian leadership. Talk to anyone who’s gotten up high in the army and they’ll tell you that’s drilled into their head as soon as they reach a leadership position, if not earlier. That’s what troubles me about the “Petraeus report” and the “I do what the generals tell me” stuff Bush says. The generals are supposed to do what Bush says, not vice versa. For him to put the policy decisions in the hands of unelected military people is a violation of the principle of civilian leadership. He shouldn’t do it and Petraeus shouldn’t play along with it.
I doubt you’ll find anyone in the military who would disagree with the jist of what I just said.
The same basic principle applies to Randy “Colonel” Kuhl vs. Eric Massa. Which opinion regarding the situation in the Middle East do you think carries more weight? In times of war we turn to experts. “They” may have got us into this mess, but “we” can certainly tap into the expertise of many that have the experience *and* the CREDENTIALS to make qualified and competent decisions.
We should expect NO LESS.
As for Petraeus vs. Betrayus - the truth is he has betrayed himself. He wasn’t the first…Colin Powell was when he testified before the UN. The Powell Doctrine, named after Colin Powell, was ignored, blasphemized, and destroyed by the same administration he served:
The questions posed by the Powell Doctrine, which should be answered affirmatively before military action, are:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
How would YOU answer those questions in response to the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? How would YOU apply those same principles towards any action in Iran?
This is the first American War in history where 2 active wars are engaged, and yet there has been NO sacrifice at home for the effort.
It’s our soldiers, and their families that are paying the price for this. Those who compromised their principles or lied to accomplish their desire for war should absolutely, 100% and without exception be held accountable for their actions.
And perhaps if the effects of war WERE felt at home, our desire to find a solution and bring our soldiers home would be swift and unanimous.
Here we argue about “Betrayus”… when in reality and in comparison, it pales in contrast to this situation as a whole. There are SIX years worth of guilty parties, and the longer this is protracted, the more each of us becomes just as accountable as the rest of them.
It’s time to bring the soldiers home. “Victory” at any cost is NOT acceptable.
John - first off it is Batiste. second - the list of Generals is long, Batiste, Odom, Shineski (sp) Clarke, company grade like Paul Rieckhoff, and the officers of the the Iraq Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA). All are saying the same thing with slight variations.
Petraeus is a general - part of the processional officer corps. He is duty bound to support the commander in chief. period. If he doesn’t, he is duty bound to resign. He didn’t resign so he will support the effort. That Bush put him in that position to help decide policy is unconscionable. Period. But that is what passes for a n irresponsible Republican administration
Would Petraeus say it can’t be done? The military follows orders, it says yes sir yes sir three bags full - it figures out a way to get it done or dies trying. As it should be. Orders are stay in Iraq and do what Bush tells them to do.
Look at it this way some football game the coach switches out QBs. Things don’t go well for the new sub QB. What is that QB going to say for the coach. Well, maybe I’m not the one for the job. Does that happen?
I will say that Batiste said he was disappointed in the Petraeus testimony. That the professional officer corps is split should say something about the bigger picture that we as a nation are not together on the policy.
Our troops are tough and I certainly would not want to be on the business end of the military spear. Still the current policies are destroying the military to the point where our spear is becoming hollow.
The point in all this is our national “policy” is a failed policy. We are simply strengthening Iran. We removed Irans largest threat - Saddam, we are going after the Sunni insurgents. We are arming or not actively pursuing the Shiites who seem to bid their time until the Sunnis are under control or eliminated. All this means significant battlefield prep is happening now as various sheiks, Imams and other local leaders are assassinated.
Yet we are calling the surge a success because we don’t’ count as casualties shots to the back of the head.
Our occupation is not really changing anything.
When we pull out (We are leaving) it will take several months perhaps more than a year. But we will leave. There will be chaos, perhaps even a spike in chaos. How is that different that what is happening there now on a daily basis? Limited services, car bombs, etc etc etc.
The Iraqis need to look after their affairs and they won’t do so until we are out. They need to know we are leaving.
My girlfriend’s brother is in the Navy. He has been for over two years now. Apparently before his entry into the Navy (as an officer), he was very interested in politics and had certain political opinions. What those were exactly, I don’t know. I’ve never had a political discussion with him. Here’s why.
While there is a code barring you from certain political activities, it doesn’t necessarily ban you from participating in politics altogether. Yet, they instilled in my future brother-in-law a feeling that he cannot discuss politics AT ALL, even though soldiers are still entitled to their own opinions… so long as those opinions aren’t made in uniform.
My point in all this is that I think the military stresses the parts of that code which they want to get across. Those parts being you keep your mouth shut, you do your job and any political feelings you have, keep them to yourself.
I’ve always found it hypocritical that our troops can defend our opinions and our rights but they are limited in their own. It’s almost sad in a sense to think that there are probably tens of thousands of troops in Iraq right now (and I know one of them personally) who know they have a job to do, but feel that the overall mission is crap.
The reason they feel that way? The civilian leadership.
I compare it to a law firm that depends on paralegals to do all the dirty work to make the lawyers who run the firm look good. The administration sends troops over to any given country and when they can declare victory, they say, “We won.” Wait a minute… we?
And thus, why I won’t serve. I thought that, after high school, I would join the Navy and see where that took me in the world. That was pre-Iraq. Then Iraq happened and I didn’t want any part of the military. I saw what it did to my grandfather. One of his lasting pieces of advice to me was to never join the military. He always said that there was a much better life than military life and that I should pursue that other life. It’s a lesson I’ll never forget.
My point in all this rambling is that the civilian leadership doesn’t understand this toll. How could they? None of their children or relatives are fighting in this war. You have the two Bush daughters prancing around the world and women their age are in Iraq, with some of those same women dying to protect their sorry *sses.
The civilian leadership will never understand… unless they’ve been there themselves.
We can disagree all we want - good faith whatever - when the instruments of government, the media unite to push a specific view point. When we cherry pick intel, when we don’t actively debate - We haven’t had active debate inside Washington in 6 years, or at least not the type of debate we needed to have. Now here we are
Is someone a “liar” because they support Bush policies etc? Not necessarily. But if they start to emphasize some data over others - recalculate based on simplier standards - when we bend the rules to ensure our desired stand - we aren’ t lying - we are worse than liars. We are shills.
I could not sleep tonight and went on-line and found that you and others mis-construed my point. I was not trying to suggest that you need a military background to have an opinion about Iraq. If that were true very few of us could talk about it. What I meant was that it is difficult for people without a military background to objectively analyse military matters.
Two Generals have different views on the subject. You have chosen Gen. Batiste’s views, I choose Gen. Petraeus’ position. Neither one of us has reached our conclusions because of our depth of knowledge about military strategy and tactics. That does not invalidate our views.
It does mean that our views on the two generals’ opinions are based on our general knowledge and our political perspective. When we agree with one of their opinions about military tactics, we are taking for granted that they know what they are talking about.
MoveOn did not simply suggest that Gen. Petraeus was wrong. The ad effectively stated that he was a willing traitor to us, the people he is truly obligated to. As I read the comments, many suggested that as a military man, he was bound to do Bush’s bidding. So those commentators are, in effect, calling the guy a liar and a coward for not resigning and telling us what he really knows. The ones who give him the “benefit of the doubt”, say that he is putting the best spin on a bad situation.
Why does he have to be a liar or a traitor or a toady or a fool? Why can’t we disagree with him without perjoratives? If a Congressperson or Senator said (as some have) “I’ve been to Iraq, I don’t agree with your assessment”, that’s one thing. To accuse the man of being dishonorable is quite another.
Its a symptom of what has become of politics. Its not good enough to disagee anymore. To score political points, many feel that it is necessary to scourge the opponent and ascribe evil motives to him or her. That is what MoveOn did and it may well come back to haunt the Democrats.
Jiminy:
I obviously need some sleep, since I agree with some of your underlying points.
Bush has made so many errors with regard to fighting this war that it is almost impossible to believe. Unlike you, I think that fighting all manner of Islamic radicals and terrorists and their state sponsors is vital to our survival. As such, I still believe attacking Iraq was a reasonable part of the so-called War on Terror.
The fact that the Bush administration failed to account for the aftermath of toppling Saddam was a dismal failure. We obviously had too few troops, and wrong-headed rules of engagement. Rumsfeld and Bremmer failed miserably in their jobs.
But Bush’s biggest failure is the one you alluded to. He failed to enlist the American people in this cause. in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most of us would have joined the armed forces or accepted any other role in fighting the people who attacked us. Unfortunately, the President and his team thought we should just go shopping.
Now people are tired of the headlines about Americans being killed and billions being spent on what appears to many to be a far-away an unimportant matter. The failure by the President to explain the danger of radical Islamic fundamentalism has allowed us to be lulled into believing we can just go home and it will be over.
That’s the part I don’t get about you. Do you think if we just pick up and go home everything will just go back to normal? Will al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah stop attacking us? Will Iran and Syria become our pals? What happens after we go home?
My view is that they will be emboldened by their victory. Once again, the view of Americans as a soft, hedonistic people will be reinforced. And they will plan and train for their next attack. My guess is that it will be worse than ever.
I think Petreus is lying, in that he knows what he’s saying isn’t the whole truth. Ass-kissing in private is one thing, but betraying the very institution you represent in public is another.
What confuses me is what does Petreus stand to gain by shilling for the administration? He’s got his 4 stars, so he’s not bucking for a promotion. He’s inevitably going to retire in the next few years and he’s got to know that Iraq is going to hell, so why is he making himself the poster boy for a policy which is doomed to fail and which is going to define his post-military career. Maybe his hero is General Westmoreland?
The fact is, even if you support the war, was that war with Iraq could have waited. More than anything else, I hold George Bush accountable for the fact that he RUSHED the U.S. into a war we didn’t need to fight - immediately or at all, depending on your point of view. In doing so, he both set up our military for failure and seriously pissed off the rest of the world, destroying U.S. credibility and goodwill abroad. By taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan (which was a war we DID need to fight, and should have started fighting in the 1990s) we allowed our most dangerous enemy (Al Queda/Taliban) to recover when we had them on the run. It’s also pretty obvious, based on non-partisan (read non-U.S., but NATO member) sources, that the administration went to war on inadequate intelligence and saw what they wanted to see about Iraq’s WMD programs. That’s just bad strategy. Now, by staying in Iraq, we piss off the Arabs even more, and our troops act as ducks in a shooting gallery for any Jihadist nut who can figure out how to sneak across the (incredibly porous) Iraqi borders.
You write that “The failure by the President to explain the danger of radical Islamic fundamentalism has allowed us to be lulled into believing we can just go home and it will be over.”
That’s not what I believe, nor is it the opinion of the majority of the people on the list. I hold Bush and his enablers for a catastrophic failure to understand the nature of the war against Islamist (and by extension, Right-Wing Religious Authoritarian) fundamentalism. He, and we, have gotten distracted from the larger issue of defeating Islamist terrorists by the quagmire in Iraq. As the cliche’ goes, “When you’re up to your ass in alligator’s it’s hard to remember your original mission was to drain the swamp.” Not just that, but the Iraq misadventure is actively contributing to the rise of Islamist fundamentalist radicalism. In case you haven’t noticed, every time the U.S. public has had a say in whether to continue the war (e.g., during the 2004 and 2006 elections), Osama Bin Ladin magically releases a videotape suggesting that we do exactly the opposite of what George Bush wants us to do - thus driving U.S. public opinion in the direction of Bush’s policies. Why would a crafty, extremely intelligent, sworn enemy of the U.S. do this? Because he actually wants us to do the exact opposite of what he says! This means the Osama Bin Ladin wants George Bush to remain in power and for the U.S. to remain engaged in Iraq.
“Do you think if we just pick up and go home everything will just go back to normal?”
Good God, no! Getting out of Iraq is just the first step in refocusing the U.S. campaign against Islamist fundamentalist extremism.The current (admittedly liberal, “soft power”) consensus thinking on what we ought to do is as follows:
1) Refit and repair the U.S. military so that it’s an effective fighting force. (Currently the U.S. is critically short of light armored vehicles and its helicopter force is about shot. Troops strengths are down and morale is in the toilet.)
2) Rework U.S. fiscal policies so that we aren’t fighting the war on a deficit financed by the Chinese and the Arabs. (They can jerk our chain just by threatening to convert their dollar holdings to Euros, collapsing the value of the dollar against other currencies.)
3) Move the U.S. towards energy independence so that we aren’t sending money to the Middle East where it gets funneled to terrorists. (Most of the money funding Al Queda and other Middle-East terrorist groups comes from Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf oil countries.)
4) Reestablish world-wide goodwill towards the U.S. using “soft power” and “hearts and minds” diplomatic, foreign aid and low-level counterinsurgency campaigns. (The only reason that the people in Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Gaza, West Bank, etc. accepted a bunch of bloodthirsty Islamist nuts as their leaders is because those nuts were the only people to provide them with basic services - like rule of law, education (of a sort), and health care. Right now, the U.S. Army is doing more good by sending SpecOps teams into African war zones to kill off bandits and inoculate kids than the entire rest of the army is doing in Iraq.)
5) As we soften up public opinion in the developing world, we send in our spies - GOOD spies who really understand “human intelligence” and are willing to really blend into the local culture, not the usual CIA clowns - to identify and eliminate potential terrorist cells and other threats to U.S. interests. (This is the way the British did it, and their empire lasted for over two centuries.)
6) Use conservation of force to maximize U.S. military power abroad. If the target is too “hard” for a spy or assassin to take down, send in the Special Operation forces. If it’s too hard for the snake-eaters, send in the Marines. If the Marines can’t crack it, send in the Army and the Air Force. But, if you’re going to do anything other than small special operations missions, religiously follow the Powell Doctrine to make sure that it’s a war that the U.S. can win with the tools at hand.
7) Put pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian state (serious pressure, like threatening to cut off the $1 billion or so in military aid we give them each year). By doing so, the U.S. proves itself to be an “honest broker” in the Middle East - not beholden to Israel as so many Arabs believe - and sucks the oxygen out of the Islamist claims to the contrary.
“Will al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah stop attacking us?”
Actually, Hamas and Hezbollah don’t attack us at home. They’re interested in taking out Israel, or failing that, at least getting a viable Palestinian state. Lean hard on the Israelis (especially the right-wing fundamentalist Jews who are blocking a two-state Israeli-Palestinian settlement which the majority of Israelis want) to get a negotiated settlement and Hamas and Hezbollah dry up and blow away.
Al-Queda and its associated groups are harder targets to take out. Because Al-Queda is, at this time, more of an ideology than an actual organization, you need to discredit the ideology. Eliminate the conditions which turn bright, ambitious, young Muslim men into radical fundamentalists - put pressure on the corrupt Middle Eastern and Central Asian governments which enable Al Queda - either deliberately (e.g., Pakistan) or covertly (Saudi Arabia) to clean up their acts while simultaneously pushing programs to discredit the conservative mullahs in those countries.
“Will Iran and Syria become our pals?”
Well, they should be. Once upon a time, Iran was on of the best U.S. allies in the Middle East. Right now, the majority of the population is too young to remember the 1979 Revolution and they absolutely HATE the old mullahs who led the revolution. Once Iran comes to its senses and gets rid of Ahmadinejad (Iran’s answer to George Bush), they’ll come around to our way of thinking. Believe it or not, they’re actually the best candidates for true Western-style democracy in the Middle East, and they could be a major ally in keeping traditionally chaotic parts of Central Asia (e.g., Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq) in line.
Force a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement and Syria will come around - their big issue is control over the water rights to the Golan Heights and Palestinian refugees. A Palestinian buffer state between Israel and Syria with guarantees of adequate water rights for all parties involved solves both issues and gives Syria every reason to play nice with the rest of the world.
These things could happen! Remember that just a year ago Libya renounced its WMD and nuclear programs and is now trying hard to rejoin the rest of the world. Albania used to be a closed Stalinist communist state and now it’s gone to being a tourist destination. Containment of rogue nations won the Cold War and there’s no reason to believe that it’s not still a viable strategy.
“What happens after we go home? My view is that they will be emboldened by their victory.”
Of course they will be, but what will they do next? Let their hubris be their downfall, let Iraq be Al Queda’s quagmire instead of ours. Once the U.S. leaves the local Iraqi sheiks will have no reason to cooperate with the foreign Jihadists and they’ll kill any Al Queda members still left in the country (about 600 based on best public intelligence estimates). The U.S. can more easily identify and take out the remainder as they flee to other locations. Syria won’t want them, nor will Iran (Al Queda considers Iran’s version of Islam to be heretical), so they’ll have to go through Turkey or Kuwait (good U.S. allies) or Kurdistan or Saudi-Arabia (where the U.S. forces are welcomed).
“Once again, the view of Americans as a soft, hedonistic people will be reinforced.”
Yeah, but nothing we can do will change that propaganda - except for our own actions and counter-propaganda. Right now, flailing around in Iraq just makes us look pathetic. In a fight, if you make a bad move, you don’t keep making the same bad move for fear that your opponent will think less of you, because you know that he’ll just laugh at your stupidity and kick your ass for making the same the dumb move twice. Instead, you retreat, recover and refocus your attack so you can hit the enemy where it really hurts. George Bush and the Republicans have made a whole pile of bad moves, and worse, refuse to admit they’re bad moves. Predictably, our enemies and rivals (Al Queda, Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.) are laughing and kicking our butts. Right now, in Iraq, we’re trying to kill a nest of ants (Al-Queda) with a hammer. Get out of Iraq, implement intelligent policies, and we can drop the hammer and pick up the shovel and the gasoline.
John,
You state: ” I think that fighting all manner of Islamic radicals and terrorists and their state sponsors is vital to our survival. As such, I still believe attacking Iraq was a reasonable part of the so-called War on Terror.”
Islamic radical? Islamic Terrorist? Or do you mean those whose belief is rooted in Islam? This statement makes it sound as though we’re fighting a religious war, and that the Crusades are now in place - eliminate Islamic Muslims so that the Christians can rule the world in their capitalistic bubble, and a forced democracy that the world has to adopt to. It’s our way or the highway. What gives the U.S. the right?
“He failed to enlist the American people in this cause. in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most of us would have joined the armed forces or accepted any other role in fighting the people who attacked us.”
Show ONE example of how Iraq was involved in 9/11 and how they in any way “attacked us”? Or are they one of those “state sponsors” you speak of? Furthermore, your statement of how “most of us would have joined the armed forces or accepted any other role in fighting the people who attacked us.” is amazing considering that it’s OK to condemn members of Congress who did just that in response to the false information provided for the basis of this war, when at the time - those who did not support it were traitors. You can’t have it both ways, even though you want to - or demand that the American people let you. I’m not buying into that.
“That’s the part I don’t get about you. Do you think if we just pick up and go home everything will just go back to normal? Will al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah stop attacking us? Will Iran and Syria become our pals? What happens after we go home?”
This statement confirms your mindset of a religious battle of “us vs. them”. You’re now throwing Hamas and Hezbollah into the mix. At least now I’m beginning to understand the Israeli attack of the past 48 hours, and the suspected U.S. involvement in helping them plan and perpetuate the action. Thanks to the actions of “W”, the world will never be “normal” again.
What happens after we go home?”
You tell me - We should never have gone there at all - but now that we have created such instability in that entire section of the world, and have created such anger with the rest of the world - you tell me John - all things considered, and an exit plan a requirement - what would YOU do? Or are you expecting our soldiers to remain in the region forever until ever practicing Muslim is dead?
You’re really frightening. What’s worse is that this mentality goes straight to the top.
Bring them home - learn to lick your wounds and accept “defeat”. In my world, it’s considered “shame”…we never should have been there in the first place and trying to pin this huge mistake on a religion, or attacking people who disagree with this administration, and what they represent, is ridiculous. Blaming a nation for an attack to which they were not involved…beyond reproach.
We are NOT the world police. Nor should we ever be.
Bring our troops home.
Do you think if we just pick up and go home everything will just go back to normal?
More normal than they are now, yes.
Will al-Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah stop attacking us?
This is a red herring. These groups have almost nothing to do with Iraq. Al Qaeda is based in Pakistan, Hamas ini Palestine, and Hezbollah in Iran and Lebanon. Our being in Iraq weakens our ability to deal with Iran. We should have more troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban, which has real ties to Al Qaeda, is.
The AQI group in Iraq is Mickey Mouse. Most of the real attacks are from former Baathists. Quite simply, there is no real Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. Might we need a residual force in Iraq to prevent it from being a state sponsor of terrorism? Absolutely. But we don’t 160,000 troops for that.
Will Iran and Syria become our pals?
We need to negotiate with them. Even Randy Kuhl thinks so.
What happens after we go home?
We can save a lot of money and a lot of American lives and still have more resources to deal with actual terrorist threats.
My view is that they will be emboldened by their victory.
They’re already emboldened by our failure there every day.
I’m glad you ask these questions, because it is important to think about the effect of our leaving.
John: on criticizing Petraeus, I think that I’m not going too far by calling him a shill. I think that’s fair. I do see your point and that it wasn’t “everybody shut up and listen to the guy in the uniform” as I originally suggested it was.
But I think there were real problems with his testimony and the way he seems to be allowing Bush to use him. I think he should have resigned as many far more honorable men have done in the same situation.
John, if you get a chance, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on Kuhl’s new blog piece where he talks about what a “true American hero” Petraeus is. Do you think it’s over-the-top? I’m curious.
Team America: World Police
(recommended for your viewing pleasure)
I think its fairly clear that those motions were politics in action. But MoveOn’s ad was the same. I guess this is part of what troubles me. Both sides playing politics, posturing, hurling insults and counter-charges.
Sometimes I wonder how we got the “leaders” we have. Everything in Washington is based on winning the point. What’s good for the party or the pol is all that counts.
[...] to the Petraeus testimony to Congress. You can see this play out in the comment storm in our recent posts over the MoveOn ad controversy. General Petraeus is lying, the MoveOn add denigrates the troops [...]
I tend to blame the national media. I certainly agree that it’s sad that it seems there’s more name-calling than real debate, but I tend to think that a lot of that is a function of what the media covers. I think there are leaders on both sides who are trying honestly to figure out what’s best to do in Iraq. It’s just that they don’t get any media coverage. In a more perfect world, we’d be focusing on policy debates led by Senators like Warner and Webb and former diplomats and generals like James Baker, James Scowcroft, Wes Clark, and Richard Holbrooke.
If that’s what had been happening and MoveOn had run that ad, I would have been mad at them for interrupting a serious debate. But they were just answering Bush’s silliness and name-calling with the only language the media understands: more name calling.
John,
I’m curious as to your take on this story where Rush Limbaugh calls or allows w/o challenge someone to refer to Senator Hagel as Senator Betrayus for supporting the Democrats.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003
What I find amazing in all this is the standards. We can attack a sitting Senator (decorated Republican Senator) for speaking his mind but get all in a tither when a a Generals potential comments are called out ahead of testimony.
[...] MoveOnapalooza [...]