Dean v. Bush: "Winning" in Iraq
Or Winning Smart?
Speaking in San Antonio on Monday, Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean said that the US cannot win in Iraq. The link just given, to WOAI, allows you to listen to the interview. He called for bringing the national guards home from Iraq immediately. Excerpts:
' "I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."
Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops. '
I'm going to blog the interview as I listen to it:
Dean compared the skewing of intelligence on Iraq in the build-up to the war to Watergate, which he pointed out also occurred in Nixon's first term and only hit him in the second.
Dean said neither he nor Murtha wanted a withdrawal from Iraq (i.e. just pick up stakes and come back across the Atlantic), but rather a redeployment. Dean suggested an over-the-horizon US military force be stationed in a nearby friendly Arab country to deal with any problems of terrorism that remained in the wake of the redeployment. Dean said there should be a 2-year timetable for draw-down of troops from Iraq itself.
He said Bush wanted a permanent commitment to a failed policy in Iraq.
Dean said that 80 percent of Iraqis want the US and coalition troops out. (This was a British military poll done in Iraq that got leaked).
Dean criticized "Vietnamization" as a failed policy in Vietnam, and implied that keeping a big US military force on the ground in Iraq while attempts were made to "Iraqize" military operations would likewise fail.
He also accused Bush of deliberately suppressing intelligence reports from the CIA that raised doubts about his allegations concerning Iraq, and of not allowing Congress to see them at the time.
Bush and Cheney insisted on staying their course.
Actually, this debate is not about winning or losing. The maximalist goals of the Bush administration in Iraq have not been achieved and never will be achieved. Despite what Paul Bremer said, the US is not going to "impose its will on the Iraqis," and despite (probably) Irving Lewis Libby's silly allegation, the US is not manufacturing reality in Iraq (or at least not a very nice one--see the next item).
The debate is just about disengagement strategy. Bush wants to keep a large US military force in Iraq for as long as it takes to build up a new Iraqi military and government under US tutelage, so as to avoid the disaster of a collapse of Iraq when the US comes out (when, not if). Bush's plan probably envisions a significant US troop presence for a good five years (how long it will really take to train an Iraqi army, if it can be done at all).
Dean wants to bring home the National Guards in 2006, and in 2007 to redeploy US army fighting divisions to bases in the region (probably Kuwait and Turkey, though he was diplomatic enough not to say so.) He also wants to avoid the disaster of a total collapse in Iraq. He is just convinced that long-term heavy US troop presence actually makes such a collapse more likely, and wants to deal with the problem differently.
So they are really just arguing over 2 years versus 5 years, and over direct US presence in that period versus an over-the-horizon capability to intervene against building threats to the US (i.e. if Zarqawi took over Anbar province and started up training camps for September 11 Part Deux--the Cheney nightmare scenario).
Dean apparently wants to know why you couldn't take out any terrorist training camps that grew up with surgical strikes and special ops, rather than by garrisoning Anbar with 10,000 Marines who keep emptying out its cities and making the inhabitants refugees.
Dean's remarks will, predictably, be twisted so that he is depicted as urging isolationism and complete withdrawal ("surrender", the Right will call it.)
Let me just suggest to him and others who are pushing this sensible plan that we call it "Winning smart in Iraq" rather than "can't win." What can possibly be won is the avoidance of a hot civil war or a regional guerrilla war that plunges the world into economic crisis. Winning that is in the best interests of everyone, Iraqis and Americans alike.
As for Bush's "winning" in Iraq, what did he want?
*He wanted to weaken al-Qaeda, which he said he believed received Iraqi state support. He was completely wrong about that, if he really did believe it and wasn't just lying. In fact, Bush has enormously strengthened al-Qaeda, and he has not captured its top leadership. The London July 7 bombers explicitly were taking revenge for what they saw as US and British atrocities in Iraq. Zawahiri was able to recruit them because Bush's actions in Iraq created such rage.
*He wanted to destroy Arab socialism and make Iraq a free market economy. In fact, Iraq's economy is a basket case and the likelihood is that the petroleum industry, the major source of wealthy, will remain in federal or provincial government hands. A good 50 percent of Iraq's economy will be in the public sector for a long time to come. Sounds like Socialism to me.
*He wanted to open Iraq up to unrestricted US corporate investment (Paul Bremer's 100 laws, which Naomi Klein has written about). US corporations, however, are not interested in failed states, and are giving Iraq a pass. In the meantime, Canadian and Norwegian companies are getting a look-over by the Iraqi provincial authorities.
*He wanted a place to put bases in Iraq at the head of the Oil Gulf so as to be able to withdraw from Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan airbase. In fact, no elected Iraqi government is going to lease long-term military bases to the United States. 80 percent of Iraqis want the US troops out completely, yesterday. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani will at some point give a fatwa to that effect, and then it will be all over (as it was in the Philippines when its parliament asked the US to leave).
*He wanted to use Iraq as a springboard to undermine the regime of the mullahs in Iran, the other member of the "axis of evil." In fact, the emergence of a politically mobilized Shiite majority in Iraq has given Iran new geopolitical advantages.
*He says he wanted to make Iraq a model of liberal democracy and human rights for the Greater Middle East. In fact, the Iraqi constitution says that Islam is the religion of state, that the civil parliament cannot pass legislation that contradicts the laws of Islam; and it allows ayatollahs to be put on court benches, etc., etc. So is Iraq going to have freedom of speech, or will blasphemy be a hanging offense? I bet on the latter. Bush implied to his evangelical supporters that they would have a free mission field in Iraq (which they wanted to use then to evangelize the rest of the Muslim world). Any evangelical missionary who shows up in Iraq today may as well just go straight to the studio to record his hostage tape.
So, Bush hasn't won and won't win the things he and his officials said they wanted.
We have to win smart. That means giving the Iraqis their independence ASAP while acting responsibly to avert potential crises if necessary.
There are people* attacking me now because I say I think the US does have the responsibility to forestall massive hot civil war in Iraq if it can, of the sort that could leave 2.5 million people dead and 5 million displaced abroad. That is what happened in Afghanistan from 1979. The US helped destabilize it(the Soviets contributed more to the actual destabilzaiont)in the 1980s and then, under Bush senior, just walked away completely. [Many on t]he American far left never complained about what was going on in Afghanistan in the 1990s, because for them the only source of evil in the world is US imperialism, and since the US had largely left Afghanistan, all was well. No matter if hundreds of thousands of Afghans were maimed as the US turned its back. Somehow they don't complain so loudly about US-led NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia, which certainly saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. They don't actually care about Bosnians or Afghans or Iraqis, just about hating the US. The US has done horrible things. It has also done noble things. I am hoping that it finally does the noble thing in Iraq, and wins smart, for the Iraqis and for the Americans. Dean gets that. Bush doesn't.
---
I used the phrase originally "looney left" for these quarters that wanted to paint me as some sort of war criminal for hoping to forestall genocide. The comments section has convinced me to avoid the phrase, because people who consider themselves on the left and are eager to see the US out of Iraq seem to have developed a free-floating anxiety that I might be referring to them or their position. I assure them that I was not; it is to a looney position that I was referring.
posted by Juan Cole @ 12/07/2005 12:30:00 AM
51 Comments:
You are really insulting a large segment of your readers by using epithets like "loony left". Perhaps you need to write less and choose your words more carefully, because those particular words sound like the kind of phrase David Horowitz would use.
Look-- the anti-war folks are convinced, not without reason, that the next step is an invasion of Syria or a bombing campaign against Iran. In this respect, they just want American troops out in order to forestall such dire events.
There are others on the antiwar left that think the entire plan of the neo-cons and Israeli supporters in this country was to cause Iraq to disintegrate into factions, since there are Israeli papers going back to the 1980's favoring just such a strategy. Thus, they think, the less meddling of American forces the better. I agree that this last view is somewhat contradictory, but in any case, such views may be described as naive or in the second case, cynical, but please avoid using pejorative terms like "loony". Please take your words back and stop insulting your loyal readership.
"Bush wants to keep a large US military force in Iraq for as long as it takes to build up a new Iraqi military and government under US tutelage, so as to avoid the disaster of a collapse of Iraq when the US comes out..."
I have to disagree with this statement, starting with what Bush "wants". Bush wanted to get reelected and he wanted to outdo his father, in my opinion. There has never been anything said or done by Bush that indicates that he cares what happens to Iraq or its people beyond what is politically advantageous for him. I believe he knows that Iraq is a lost cause and wants only to keep the troops in so he doesn't have to face the humiliation of defeat while he is still President. Maybe he will kid himself that a miracle will happen and the war will be "won," but no way does he have any real strategy for an actual victory in Iraq short of bombing the country into an unrecognizeable parking lot, which I think is still on the table for Bush and the neocons.
You make some valid points. I supported the war because I believed we could put a free-market democracy in place and that this would transform the region. I now realize I was naive for thinking that this was easy. And if we fail to leave a stable democracy in place, I will have been completely wrong about the war.
Having said that, Dean's idea of a timetable is just bad strategy. If you tell the enemy when you're leaving they will plan accordingly. Dean should name one war where a timetable was used. Pull them out in two years if 1) the insurgency has been suppressed, or 2) the Iraqi government asks us to leave. A timetable is foolish.
"Winnning Smart"?
Bush made a considerable contribution to modern American political rhetoric with the his alliterations.
I got give the man credit.
But it is time for slogans to go..Especially for Democrats.
"complete victory" v. "Winning smart?"
C'mon. Cutting our losses as best we can doesn't make for much of a slogan I grant you but why is that the most important US foreign policy debate in decades is reduced to what sounds like a colloquy on between Beavis and Butthead?
5-2-1
I think Zbigniew Brzezinski has it about right. I have since the first I heard his views on disengagement nearly two years ago. I hasten to add that putting 5 years on Bush's lips is a fool's errand.
He's freed himself of Bush sloganeering perhaps?
What about Iraq?
Our congressional leaders are still inclined to dance around the issue or to find salvation in a formula that calls for American disengagement -- but gradually and without indicating what that means in terms of levels or dates. I’m not sure that’s a wise policy. Because once you begin to draw down your troops, it’s probably better to remove them rapidly. If you scale down your presence gradually, the reduced numbers are going to be in jeopardy. Moreover, it doesn’t have the psychological and political effect of shaking Iraqis into a realization that it is their responsibility to stand on their own feet. We need to scale down our definition of success and realize we’re not going to get a "democratic," secular, pro-American Iraq. We’re going to get an Iraq that is responsive to Iraqi nationalism and dominated by a combination of Shiites and Kurds with some proportion of Sunnis adjusting to that reality. It will probably be more theocratic in character than we would like to see. But it will be a regime that responds to current political realities. I think we need to bite the bullet and leave sometime in the next year.
Do you think the Iraqi army is going to be ready soon?
I think our course with the Iraqi forces verges on the absurd: It is all about us training them. The question arises: Training them to do what? If it is a matter of knowing how to use a Kalishnikov in order to kill other people, I think most military-aged Iraqis don’t need our training. If it is a question of training Iraqis so they behave and act like American soldiers, that’s well and good. Except that is not what is needed in the circumstances we will be bequeathing them. What is needed is motivation based on loyalty to the powers that be. That will mean loyalty to various Shiite militias with a clerical connotation and loyalty to the two major Kurdish formations. Plus, perhaps eventually, loyalty to some Sunni militias based on a tribal allegiance. The motivation is not going to be created by American sergeants who are -- quote, unquote -- "training" them how to behave like American soldiers.
Dear Brian:
I'm hoping none of my readership considers itself on the looney left, so I can't see how any of them could be insulted by the language. I'm referring to a discourse that always thinks anything the US or the US military does is always evil and always worse than anything anyone else could do. When Saddam massacred the Shiites and put them in mass graves, none of these observers on the far left said anything at all about it. And, from what they are saying now, a lot of them couldn't care less if the neo-Baath and the Salafi Jihadis did it all over again.
Anyway, it is true that people have attacked me simply for urging that we get most ground troops out, but use air power judiciously to attempt to forestall a possible resulting hot civil war, which could become genocidal. Their premise is apparently that any US use of force is always evil.
The issue with Iraq and what should be the "anti-war" movement is the degree to which the United States should accept responsiblity for misadventures overseas. It was easy to throw rocks at Saddam Hussein (or Assad or the Iranis) so long as they remain(ed) in charge. As soon as the Americans enter a sovereign nation intent on militarily forcing changes, the whole place becomes a dependency of the U.S. THIS was the problem with going into Iraq without having sufficient numbers of strong allies picking up pieces of the responsibility for fixing what they would inevitably break. The Euro-centred nations are just biding their time (and saving lots of moolah) until it's time for the region to convert to their currency, all the while the Americans' backs will be stressed if not broken, with their military, economy, and dollars weakened far too much.
If [Sir] Colin Powell is thought to have said ONE thing correctly, it was the statement to the effect of "you break it, you buy it." What is amazing is the degree to which the English have gone around the World in the past on their own misadventures and have not been called to account for the mayhem that occurred as a result of their deeds. A piddling number of forces in the South of Iraq is not really representative of what they ultimately remain responsible for in the Middle East.
"Looney" anyones has included those who looked at the potential for failure in Iraq long before the famous UN speechifying by the Buscists AND determined that Iraq was better left alone. allowing the inspectors to finish their work. This pertains to the so-called "left" as well as everyone else across the political spectrum who didn't want to spend the money like pouring water onto the Arabian desert nor taking on another 24 million dependents, many of whom dislike the Americans as much as they hated Hussein. The Buscists didn't care about this for a variety of reasons, one of which was Junior's being incensed at the longevity of Hussein when his Poppy was ousted from politics after being a "winner" in 1991. The thinking that went into this conflict was more outside the realm of known political affiliations although the forces advocating the invasion played every politician's emotions like virtuoso pianists, one in particular. Junior tapped emotions to correspond to his own need to settle personal accounts and fulfill his vendetta against a variety of Middle Easterners.
Regardless of the what happened and who did it before the fact, the aftereffects mandate that the Americans, them big-hearted fools, make pretty in the region. With the lootings of museums and weapons caches, with the wanton destruction of the infrastructure over the decade, with the fiasco in the detention centres, with the animosity built up after decades of political decadence, there is a lot to prettify, much of which was safe and secure prior to the well-intended interventionists' pipeline dreams. Yet, it remains imperative to understand that the only changes to the political and social conditions will essentially come from inside. Whatever the Americans leave behind, whenever they vacate the premises, the Iraqis will do what they need to do to placate their masters while going about business as usual according to their own rule and play books.
What Is At Stake
The real struggle is for the hearts and minds of the American people, and the economic and political levers of power that go along with that.
Bush was looking for the added power that the use of the word "war" would give him. He was in deep ratings in 2001, until 9/11 turned that around. People desired a strong leader, and imputed that quality to him because of their need.
Afghanistan was over too quickly, and too far away to serve as a believable war, even with Osama still at large (and still unmolested in N. Pakistan so far as we have been lead to believe.) Terrorism as a threat isn't much better; as a public health issue, it rates right down there with snake bites and lightening bolts. Once people caught on that they weren't going to have planes raining from the skies every day, they began to relax. Even TSA is now thinking of allowing sharp objects onto planes again.
Iraq is much more photogenic. Car bombs fill the TV screens nearly every evening with a visible, horrid threat. Never mind that we can't seem to catch Zarqawi or whoever is doing this. That would remove the threat and rationale.
Instead, we have US troops playing cat and mouse, leaving sanctuaries alone for months or years, then moving in in highly stylized and publicized "offensives" which don't change anything. Some observers are horrified that this creates more insurgents than it removes. But that's the point; how else recruit people to a doomed cause?
Because without insurgents, who would we have to fight us?
The war in Iraq isn't much of a war, but it's the only one Bush has. He's not going to let it go. The insurgents aren't going to kick the US out, and the US armed forces are not going to collapse. They are likely to be in Iraq for as long as they have in Germany--60 years now and counting.
The war in Iraq is the cave in Plato's story, and the cave wall is the TV and computer screens of the world. We see only imperfectly, and it's probably a mistake to try to come up with detailed scenarios and plans for controlling events in Iraq with or without various withdrawal plans. It's Bush's call, and he's still in office.
The Iraq fighting, terrible as it is, has caused fewer US deaths in two years than die in auto accidents in two-three average weeks. Bush hasn't bombed any automobile factories yet, or even outlawed drunken driving.
As a war, Iraq isn't much. As a cause for hysteria and extremes of over-reaction, 9/11 and Iraq rank right up there with witchcraft in Salem.
I think it's a big mistake to refer to people on the far left as 'looney' just because they criticise your opinions. I haven't even seen you use this sort of disparaging language toward the neocons whom you evidently have more to disagree with about.
I also think you are wrong to say that people on the far left just think that any use of US military force is evil. No, most people on the far left have an analysis of world geopolitics under capitalism based on some variant of the theory of imperialism. They place the US within their analysis of that world system to understand its motives etc. I've never seen anyone argue that the US is 'evil'.
Finally, you're just wrong to say that people on the left did not oppose Saddam. In the UK a number of prominent people in the antiwar movement (on its leftwing too) were also vocal in their denunciation of Saddam, going right back to the late 80s.
You're very close to falling into the trap set by Bush and the right: you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. I'm with the Iraqi people and I believe they can sort their own problems out without US air power raining bombs on them.
By the way, since Achcar is a Trotskyist, does that make him a 'looney'?
Above, D. W. Eifert said...
I supported the war because I believed we could put a free-market democracy in place and that this would transform the region. I now realize I was naive for thinking that this was easy.
You were naive in thinking it would be easy? Perhaps your naivete was in thinking that we had some kind of right to impose a govenmental philosophy on a foreign culture.
First of all I want to say that I have enormous respect for your knowledge of the middle east and always take your opinions into careful consideration. I think you make a number of very good points but I too was rather put off by your characterization in the last paragraph.
As I see it, and I hope this perspective doesn't come across as looney but rather at least possible, the american military exists for exactly one purpose and one purpose only: to defend our nation. It is not to be used in an aggressive fashion barring absolute knowledge of a coming attack. It may be essentially 'loaned' to the UN for missions of a truly international character.
Part of the reason I feel this way is because the US military is so powerful and frankly arrogant that it tends to break a lot more than it fixes. I would think that our history in the Middle East, South East Asia, and Central America would support such a contention. That being the case then what is the best possible course of action? To remove our troops from a situation where they only forestall and prolong a collapse that is virtually guaranteed. A lot of people will die, of course, but they are going to die whether the civil war happens now or five years from now. The question is how many will die in the months before the civil war. We never should have destabilized their country. But we never should have put hussein in power either.
Each time we meddle things only get worse. What possible reason do we have to think that THIS time when we meddle we'll get it right? When you have a bull in a china shop you don't try to teach it to glue plates back together. You get it out as fast as possible. It sucks, but thats the way to minimize damage (to the bull and the china).
I think I have good reason and ample cause to believe that an immediate pull out, of not just Iraq but the entire middle east, is justified and will be the best course for all. It's not based on hatred of the US military although there is an healthy measure of fear of that institution.
You can of course write whatever you want on your blog and I certainly hope you will be honest but at the same time I also hope you will reconsider your opinion of some of us who see things a tad differently.
Oh and lastly I think the premise of not using US air power to forestall a hot civil war is not that US military might is evil but rather that it very well may not work and further more isn't our place. A civil war, whether we like it or not, is a nations internal matter. If it gets out of hand (i.e. the genocide that indeed does seem possible) it must be the international organizations that take a role in containing it.
What you are advocating is that the US act as police officer to Iraq. I can understand the temptation since Iraq is only in this position due to our meddling. Still Our meddling has been a direct result of seeing ourselves as having some right to control their politics. What we need is less not more of that.
I remain torn by on the one hand the argument to stay in Iraq for a few years, working on getting the Iraqi military and police able to handle security and on the other, by the argument (from my own experience in Vietnam) that we have never been able to isolate the battlefield or overcome the deep sectarian differences, and so will never be able to achieve an acceptable level of security. Also on the negative side is the utter incompetence with which the Bush administration has fought the war (cf Vietnam where it took us four years under Westmoreland to find that we couldn't win with search and destroy and had to expand the effort and build a major Vietnamese capacity to pacify and hold, the new formula now being pushed in Iraq, called “take and keep” or something like that.) The soldiers have done their job, but we all know there weren't enough of them, equipment was lacking, and so on. I guess I end up with Juan that we should stay for a while, but I don't have much hope that this administration will do the necessary as they can't admit error or change course (e.g. the running argument over torture that they define by a euphemism) or tell us the truth about what is happening.
Sometimes a half-informed comment is worse than no comment at all. Just about anything Howard Dean says fits in the first catagory.
Nothing is predetermined in the world. Every choice has ramifications, both positive and negative. To say the war "can't be won" is just as stupid as it "will be won". It minimizes the role of human action in the process.
As for "precision airstrikes". Only in very few cases can such a camp be definitely identified. These guys aren't stupid and take care to not expose themselves to airstrikes. Often, such facilities are hidden in factories, neighborhoods, and other places surrounded by civilians. Such facilities have been targeted by precision airstrikes, with predictable complaining, and rending of garments.
There are no silver bullets. Baathists that want to use force for intimidation and overthrow of the country are not going to be convinced by position papers in the NY Review of Books. Sorry.
I know what you mean, Juan, about the looney left. You mean those who have made up the conspiracy theories about 9/11, saying that the US government did it to justify the war, etc. This is looney and you are justified to call it like it is.
I do consider myself a Democrat, and agree with John Murtha and Howard Dean. I also would like to add that I do feel that military actions are sometimes necessary. In fact, in Africa, our military (with NATO) is needed right now to stop the genocide there MORE than it is needed in Iraq! I would support an action there much more than I support the troops being in Iraq.
Something else has to be said though, and that is that the question needs to be raised that Ramsey Clark said the other day on CNN, whether George Bush or any president of the US has the right to oust any dictator, even a tyrannical abusive dictator from power without a reason. If the reason for going to war was bogus, then the authority for overthrowing the dictator has to be questioned. The fact is, it was not our job to overthrow their tyrannical dictator. It was their job, just like we did it in the Revolutionary War. We didn't ask the French to come and free us from England. We did it ourselves. The US government has misused/abused its power in this case, even if for a good cause. Look at the havoc it has wreaked.
If the Shiite majority link up with their brothers, the Iranians, and join together to fight against Israel, I wonder how Bush will feel then? I wonder if he will wish he would have regarded old Saddam as an ally in the "War on Terror"?
From the Looney Left.
The civil war argument might make sense if we were acting as some sort of referee in the dispute. But we are squarely on the side of the Shiites and Kurds and have little influence over their actions.
In fact in the Adminstration's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" there is an interesting sentence about who we ARE NOT at war with:
"There are other elements that threaten the democracy process in Iraq, including criminals and Shi'a religious extremists, but we judge that such elements can be handled by the Iraqi forces alone and/or assimilated into the political process in the short term."
Assuming the Kurds sustain their walled in autonomy, it will be ironic that the only opposition to an Iran friendly theocratic state will come from the people we are now fighting.
I haven't alway been looney, but five years of Bush has done the job.
"The looney left is attacking me now because I say I think the US does have the responsibility to forestall massive hot civil war in Iraq if it can,"
Well, it can't and the "looney left" got that little fact well before the invasion. And the reason it can't is because (as you say) "Bush doesn't", meaning that Bush does not get it.
Well, guess what??? Bush is in charge. That is something else the "looney left" gets that, I guess, escapes you.
If you think that putting a bomb disposal team in Kuwait, and then let Bush call in air strikes is going to do any good at all, you are looney. Maybe as looney as the neocons in charge right now.
I found you piece insulting. The current US administration is not doing anything noble in their kidnapping, torture, gulags and optional war for totally bogus reasons. They are the ones who don't care about the Iraqis, and I think that is obvious in their unwillingness to note or count the casualties.
At this point, the neo-CONS seem to be divided into two camps, the original one and the conservative offshoot. The original neo-CONS seem to have understood that military action is not the first option. They seem to be more focused on public diplomacy than they are on anything else. However, the wretched conservative offshoot, lead by McCain and supported by moderate Republicans, is much more treacherous. They are already beating the drums to war with Syria and Iran. They have not adapted their original premise, which was essentially to invade the whole Middle East. Their bloodthirsty drive for domination has not ceased, so we can only hope that Bushs' advisors have stopped listening to them. But, like a baby who won't stop crying to get what they want, these people will say anything, pull any string and sacrifice blood and guts for their irrational cause. I'm glad the Iraq war debate is going our way. Even though Dean's plan is better, the fact is that even the administration has caved, leading to the desperation of McCain and his ilk. In fact, if you listen to McCain, Kristol and Blankley, they are desperately trying to convince Bush from afar to continue supporting their policies, since Bush is seemingly the only one they have left. There is currently a split within the neo-CON movement. Americans are making it clear that they would support no more wars. So, right now, we should focus on exposing what war the neo-CONS intend to start next instead of fighting amongst ourselves. The world is too important for anything else.
When Saddam massacred the Shiites and put them in mass graves, none of these observers on the far left said anything at all about it.
OH, BULLSHIT. I SAID PLENTY ABOUT IT AND WROTE LETTERS ABOUT IT TO MY ELECTED OFFICIALS.
And, from what they are saying now, a lot of them couldn't care less if the neo-Baath and the Salafi Jihadis did it all over again.
BULLSHIT AGAIN.
US forces should be used for defense purposes - unless they are under the UN, then used for peacekeeping only. And the groups doing this should be trained differently.
Of course, in Iraq, we have no UN presence.
What about those mass graves in Fallujah from April 2004? Over 600 buried in a soccer field from US firepower. How come you don't care about them? Do you think they died for some noble cause? Do you really think the US did a good thing with killing that many in Fallujah in retaliation for the death of four "security contractors"? Do you think the US use of force was good in this case? How come you only seem to care about Shi'ias in Iraq and not about the Sunnis? Are you racist?
If I have to be labeled "looney left" to take the position that US force and firepower is an extremely bad IDEA in Iraq, then I am proud to be part of the "looney left"....
and I consider your conclusions to be just plain looney or worse.
Juan – I’m not sure I can speak for the “looney left”, or if I know who you’re referring to in the last paragraph of this post, but I’d like to address some of the points you make.
You say, “The US has done horrible things. It has also done noble things”.
Leaving aside the not inconsiderable question of how the two have balanced out over the course of history, I think we can identify the broad, general characteristics of each.
The “noble” aspects of America - for example, the fact that it enjoys greater political and social freedoms than almost anywhere else in the world - have come about almost entirely through pressure exerted upwards by ordinary Americans (who are of course no better or worse as human beings than anyone else).
The “horrible” side – eradication of whole societies and general mass killing as the west was “won”, slavery, death squads and dictatorships in Latin America, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered through sanctions – have come about as a result of the pursuit of state-corporate power and profit by social elites. (If actions of this type have moral conseqences its mostly because of an accidental alignment with the concerns of power. And your use of Yugoslavia as an example of humanitarian intervention is problematic, to say the least)
Currently, state-corporate power dominates the US political scene to an enormous extent, in the familiar “two wings of the business party” dynamic. One can therefore perhaps be forgiven for having some reservations about the proposition of the US Government acting in a noble manner now, given the historic behaviour of those elites. Of course you are absolutely right to demand that it does act nobly. But given the history, you might also understand why others, not least the majority of Iraqis by all accounts, might view US power as virtually irredeemable and therefore think that the best thing it can do by Iraq is to completely remove itself from that country so that at least it can’t do any more damage. Perhaps this view is not always “looney”, or based on some pathological hatred of America. Perhaps its mostly just other people’s rational interpretation of the history and of the present situation.
For example, perhaps what concerns many people is not the idea of the US “winning smart” in the way you describe, so much as the idea of it adopting “winning smart” as a PR posture to keep its voters quiet, whilst bombing Sunni Iraq into the stone age behind a veil of media silence.
There’s certainly the real danger of a much greater catastrophe in Iraq, and our responsibility is plainly to consider how to mitigate this, since we’ve contributed so much towards it. But, the choice is not necessarily between the presence or absence of the US-UK in Iraq. A genuine international solution (including the military aspect) stands a much better chance of success than anything US-led for a variety of reasons. Note the consensus built at Cairo recently, in the absence of high-level US involvement. You yourself once advocated an international solution. Perhaps you have changed your mind about this on the grounds of pragmatism. I would say that pragmatic concerns may lead us to have serious reservations about what you now propose, and that not all of this dissent is due to people being “looney”, hating America or not caring about Iraqis.
Best wishes
David Wearing
The Democrat’s Diary
London, UK
I do not consider myself looney, but do consider myself to be among the reference set of 'looney left' (because what matters to whether I am insulted is not whether I think I am looney, but whether you thought it when using the word), in that I don't think I agree with staying in Iraq, even given the prospect of a hot civil war. I think this despite also thinking that we have a moral responsbility to fix what we broke.
What I think makes me part of the 'looney left' though not looney is that I don't trust our government to do anything like meet our moral responsibilities. I think that until we break the connection between corporate interests and both the parties, we have no reason to believe that official action in Iraq will be guided by anything but the desire to open markets and control oil supply. This distrust of both parties (because of well-documented involvement by both with every major corporation in the country) is far from hating the US. It has become cliche, but no less true for being repeated alot, that one can love one's country while hating one's government.
So while I believe we must be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq for years, and we must provide the Iraqi people the means to resist those evil elements we allowed in, I don't think we should have the kind of physical control of the country that occupation gives us (or tries to give us). Your suggestion of air control rather than ground control is better than Bush's plan of course, but it still gives us tremendous power over any Iraqi government (i.e. some US diplomat telling an Iraqi official 'drop tariffs, or we might have to start bombing Sadr city heavily to deal with terrorists') This might be the wrong way to look at things, maybe there is no way to help the Iraqis without a military presence, but it is hardly looney. The last paragraph of this post sounded a little like Fox News in its mischaracterization of your opponents. Being concerned primarily with US imperialism does not show you to hate America. It shows you to be a patriot. Real patriots take pride in their countries glories, and feel shame at its failures. US imperialism, even if it weren't the biggest problem in the world, would deserve the special focus of the American left, because it is our country doing these bad things. Should the American left say more about atrocities that occur which are not committed by the US? Sure, everyone should. But the focus on our own bad actions does not imply that we do not care about the bad actions of others. I have donated time and money to the Pakistan Earthquak relief effort, though I don't think US imperialism is behind it. I have spent more time protesting the Iraq war, even though the odds seem good that more people will die in the long run from the earthquake, but I have hardly ignored the sufferings of non-US victims. I think something similar goes for most of the 'looney left'
Every political movement has its fringe elements. However, using the phrase "looney left" allows your statements to be cited out-of-context as criticism of, say, Amnesty International. (Example: Rush says Amnesty Int'l is part of the looney left, and noted lefty Juan Cole admits that the "looney left" hates America, therefore liberals agree that Amnesty Int'l hates America...)
I recall substantial arguments from the left for stepping in and helping Afghanistan, arguments the Republicans derided as "nation building." Remember the struggle Bill Clinton had going into Bosnia to stop the massacre of the Muslim and Croat populations there? Yes, the "all US military action is bad" fringe crowd fought it - but so did all the Republicans.
The point about your closing paragraph, Professor Cole, is that it's unusual, it's an unprecedented (for you, as far as I know) tarring of unnamed critics. And the grossness of the caricature gives off a straw man's odor.
I don't know who you're talking about or what they've said, but there are reasonable positions on the issue of withdrawal that don't resemble yours, Dean's, or Murtha's. For example, Howard Zinn has argued consistently that the US should withdraw "immediately" and extensively (i.e., not merely camped across a nearby border) because the only certainty right now is that the presence and use of US forces is resulting in wide-spread death and mayhem and is exacerbating the civil war-producing rifts that were always there. If US forces are not there, then the deaths they would be directly responsible for would not occur.
What would happen if US forces were withdrawn? It's at least plausible that a "hot" civil war would be averted, given that the US occupation and attempts at pacification are fueling the insurgency and resistance.
Because we have broken Iraq, we are responsible for fixing it. Aid--reparations--and reconstruction are owed to the Iraqis. But first we must stop doing harm.
Is this a loony tune?
Professor Cole;
I also take offence to your use of the term "loony left", especially since you don't actually specify to whom you speak of. Is it Howard Zin you consider "loony", or perhaps Rep. Barbara Lee (http://www.uscrusade.com/usterror/180920013.htm) and the other handful of progressive "liberals" in congress? You do provide a very useful service with your blog and I have been an avid reader for the last 2-3 years, but you seem to becoming more and more hawkish in your commentary. I really cannot see how the US military is doing any good in Iraq; all they do is kill Iraqis and waste their time looking for ghosts. The US owes Iraq more than it could ever repay, but further aerial bombardments and neighborhood raids is not helping them. Iraq is the product of British and American imperialism, so I think it is time to let them decide their future, and yes if major conflict breaks out the UN should then intervene, not the US.
I guess the only good thing that can be said about the situation in Iraq is that it has prevented the Bush administration from going into Iran, an even worse idea! And as you have often pointed out, the Bush administrations actions have actually strengthened Iran, how ironic…
Regards,
David T
Regarding immediate withdrawal and the 'looney left' comment: I consider myself an extreme leftist (i.e. i think the Democrats as "Republican-Lite"). I think 'hysterical left' or some such term would be more neutral.
Anyhow, my problem with the we-broke-it-we-bought-it argument for staying in Iraq is that it presupposes we are able to fix it. I'd like someone to convince me of that, because the way I see it, for every day US troops stay and for every Iraqi they kill, we are creating more extremism, and would make the 'hot civil war' worse the longer we wait for the inevitable pre-US-election withdrawal (2006? 2008? 2010?).
Also, if we leave, why wouldn't the clerical authorities in Iraq be able to step up and have their militias keep things from getting worse than they are? Iraqi's are already free enough to kill each other, from the reports on this website the US troops there now dont seem to have the power to stop them anyway.
The only solution I can think of would be to put blue UN uniforms on all the American troops and place them under UN command (led by a commander from a neutral or anti-war country which isn't hostile to its muslim population). The US military wouldn't allow this unfortunately.
Juan, do you have any thoughts on General Clark's OpEd in the Times yesterday?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/opinion/06clark.html?pagewanted=1
I, for one, am happy to see you use such a term. Loony is a good word for the extremes at both ends of the political divide, and always has been. Ludicrous would work too...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sloganeering is, whether we like it or not, a cornerstone of our political process. We can ignore this only at our peril. Developing soundbite explainations of our position is the only way it will get across to a great many Americans because, quite frankly, they either a) don't care enough or b) lack the time one is required to invest in order learn the matter in-depth. As hard as it is for the average American family to make it in today's economy, I think it is unfair to expect those people who are not so fortunate as those of us who have the time and wherewithal to educate ourselves more fully.
I, for my own part, think Dr. Cole's phrase is a good one, and one I would hope gets picked up by my party. We need to get over our loathing of bumper-sticker politics as "cheapening the debate" and accept that it has been, is, and will always be de riguer for American politics. From "Tippicanoe and Taylor, Too" to "It's the Economy, Stupid," the body politic always seems to favor those with the pithier catch-phrase.
People have not only attacked Doctor Cole for advocating some sort of quick reaction force, they have distorted some of his statements.
This is the same technique used on the right. Twist the argument into a paridy of what it was and then show the absurdity of a parody.
IMO honorable and informed individuals have held a wide variety of positions on this situation. It is complex and there are no certain answers.
Elements of both left and right have tried to simplify the situation into an either/or and do make one's position a matter of decency and intelligence.
But again I feel it is a matter of specifics.
I believe the president set forth an important element of his policy today when he mentioned economic progress as a tool for calming the country. And as with his admission that the insurgency was primarily Iraqi, todays note that economic progress was uneven was a welcome statement of at least some nuance.
The facts as I know them are the economy is mixed.
The IMF reported over 40% growth in 2003 and 2004. This was impressive.
Growth was down to 4 or 5% now. While this looks good for western economies, it is much less tha the potential for an economy as repressed as Iraq's had been. So it isn't completely shambles.
Oil production is down by 500,000 barrels per day I believe. However prices are sweet.
Electric production capacity is up some, but actual production roughly that of Saddam. However flows purchased from Iran are helping the south.
Corruption is high and unbalanced. By this I mean under Saddam things like food rations were used to buy loyalty, now for many people they are missing key items. IMO those currently involved in the flows see less need to buy off potentially dangerous groups.
This occurs at a time whern if the economy is to be healthy it needs a certain degree of "creative destruction" which means it also needs a workable "safety net."
So straiughtening out this issue would be something.
Cortruption is so bad that even the new military does not get supplies, many soldiers exist only on payrolls. This needs to be aggressively addressed.
And yes by us. As the CSM points out today US soldieras are now speaking out against the brutality in the Iraqi police and prision system. The brass seems supportive though guarded. the administration needs to get on this. Just as the Brits are trying to cleanse parts of the Basra force and to send in a chief constable to oversee it.
Even if we are leaving within months we must IMO make these gestures. Even if they are taken as admissions that this has not been the best of all possible occupations.
Trying to keep professionals from fleeing, finding out what economic efforts have worked and trying to recreate them. Probably reducing the role of contractors and bringing in a modern auditing and accounting system...
These have been real priorities since the beginning, they've been treated as secondary. Indeed only in the last few months have we started to deploy large (60 +) provincial civlian teams. So many basics have been ignored.
I don't think we can go back to the periods of lost opportunity, but we must IMO do all in our power to give honorable Iraqis useful bits and pieces to rebuild their country.
And getting back on topic, Dr Cole's conception of a rapid reaction force which can and will respond if certain situations get out of control seems a reasonable proposal.
One thing that has made this worse than it had to be is that we didn't pay much attention to the details. We stried to implement these big grand visions without dealing with all the fine points and problems.
I hope this changes whether we decide to stay or leave. And I hope we can have the courtesy of at least pretending that those who disagree with us may be decent and intelligent people.
Juan,
Are you familiar with the song "Stuck in the Middle With You"
Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right???
Well, the looney left is least of your worries.
Democrats Fear Anti-War Backlash
Bush pep rallies have em running scared..Pelosi and Dean in the caucus crossfires
As a yellow dog it pains me to note how very excreable a bunch of cowards dare call themselves Democratic party "leaders"
Their cowardice got us in the mess and it will, I fear, keep us there
McCutchen
update...
On "Winning" in Iraq
Dean's statements /2/ make lots of sense. A few remarks.
-- Semantic games aside, there can be no victory for the US in Iraq. Troops need to go, National Guard and Reserves first.
-- The problem is, the no-win situation is still mostly beyond the scope of political discussion in the US. IMO, this explains "strategic redeployment" thing :- ( To begin with, this leaves Iraqi oil resources unattended. How neocons are going to tolerate this?
-- First problem with "Arab redeployed" forces is their number. Remembering Saudi situation in the 1990-ies, we can say for sure that any significant number of troops will cause ugly tensions in the host country.
-- Next, simple question: with whom in Iraq these externally located forces are going to cooperate? Anything close to Iraqi Karzai or Abbas is really hard to imagine. The most likely result of withdrawal will be fast annihilation of these types. The remaining Iraqi factions are likely to take any cooperation with US troops as violation of national sovereignty - with all consequences that follow.
-- As far as Afghanistan is concerned, to begin with, no number of troops will resolve the opium problem. Once national economy is based on opium production, there is no simple fix for this. Opium blocks meaningful reconstruction not less effectively than guerilla war. Also, any significant troops increase usually means drawback for economic reconstruction!
-- In fact, Simon Jenkins has already made a lot to clarify the situation with "Afghani welcome" /3/. Basically, Khalilzad knows all too well that his rule in Afghanistan was not more successful than that of Bremer in Iraq. So, perfectly knowing what trouble he has left in Afghanistan, neocons do their best to shift the burden to the UK and NATO.
-- There is a simple economic explanation why Karzai and Abbas are not overthrown by the radicals. Both Afghanistan and WBG are burned out and don’t have any valuable resources. In this situation, controlling the country does not provide much material benefits. So, radical factions have plenty of time to wait until foreigners will get tired and go away. But with Iraq, it is not true because of the oil. Lust for oil revenues is likely to incite radicals even when the last urban block is destroyed.
Finally, "smart winning" in Iraq looks a lot like compromise with rightist dems /4/. It can look great politically, but not on the ground.
In 2002, I was perplexed by the magic of Daschle's maneuvering, but still assumed that he knows something very important about high political strategy that I miss. However, 2002 elections proved that it was not case, Daschle's magic did not help dems.
In 2004, I was perplexed by the horrible Moore's movie. It looks more like a video blog than a documentary, some sort of "born again" cinematography. Its content makes no sense whatsoever. The Cannes prize did not fool me, but still I kept my mouth shut - maybe there is something about modern American soul that I fail to understand? However, in 2004, Kerry lost and Daschle was gone. Thanks God - we don't hear much about Michael Moore.
Nevertheless, rightist dems and loonie screamers are still here with their stories full of the sound and the fury, signifying nothing :-(
1. Juan Cole. Dean v. Bush: "Winning" in Iraq Or Winning Smart?
2. Jim Forsyth. Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.
3. GU. Simon Jenkins. Blair should stop playing fall guy in Rumsfeld's war games
America is shrewdly retreating from Afghanistan, knowing that the place is heading for trouble. Britain is the fall guy.
4. Jim VandeHei, Shalaigh Murray. Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks
5. Wiki on Daschle
6. Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm one of the ones that was insulted because of your use of the words "loony left." I think someone like me, who has worked in very practical ways to build the infrastructure of an antiwar movement in this country, looks loony from where you sit because we are engaged in quite different projects.
You are trying to raise the abysmal level of understanding in the US of the society we've so wantonly torn apart and to develop policy prescriptions based in the realities of that place. I'm trying to influence the behavior of my country because, as a believer in democracy, I think all of us here are implicated in its crimes and foolishness.
For my purpose of moving policy from within this country, subtlety and nuance are pretty much counter productive. The job of the antiwar movement all along has been to enunciate a counter position to those forces who took 9/11 as an opportunity to trash the rule of law and to advance of US world domination. To do that, one advocates "out now" and encourages all forces that herd people toward one's pole. The real limits of US power do the rest. And we need to be grateful to those, like yourself, who attempt to turn the twists and turns of that movement into policy prescriptions.
While, hypothetically speaking, U.S. use of force does not have to be evil. It is generally not used for altruistic purposes, but is couched in such terms as, "killing terrorists", "pacifying", "stopping the spread of communism", "stopping terrorism", "liberating" somebody, etc.
In truth, most of the wars and use of force in the past 60 years have been acts of imperialism or, at best, poorly thought out military actions. Invariably, the government paints a much rosier picture of these actions than reality would allow.
So considering the U.S. track record of lies, incompetence poor planning and ulterior motives, it would seem to me that the "loony left" is doing what the press and Congress no longer bother to do, which is challenge the Government's attempts at military intervention at every turn. Everyone else is in "this time they're telling us the truth" mode.
Just because someone might be able to conjure up a scenario in which the use of force could be beneficial, it doesn't mean that a similar situation in reality would benefit from the actual "use of force". Wars fought on paper are a lot different than reality. Compound that with the fact that the the justifications for these wars, in reality, are little more than propaganda and you have a tough time convincing me that I should ever listen to any call for military action or the use of force. So consider me to be member of the "loony left."
Dispensing with the straw man of the late-arriving definition of a loonie as "a discourse that always thinks anything the US or the US military does is always evil and always worse than anything anyone else could do," I wonder what Mr. Cole makes of the words of Harold Pinter in his Nobel Prize lecture:
Pinter said that since World War II the US government "supported and in many cases engendered every right-wing military dictatorship in the world."
"I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador and, of course, Chile."
He added: "You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good."
Contemporary proponents of American military interventionalism ignore this history and too easily dismiss reluctance or refusal to employ military force. Military solutions have a duplicitous past in American history. In particular, the military "voice" of the Iraq war has been utterly mendacious or worse--Tillman, civilian deaths, Lynch, the exceptional Englund, WMD sites, Gen. Sanchez, Gen. Miller, Gen. Frank, Gen. Myers, etc.
Us "loonies," definition aside, should be cut some slack. We've good and historical reasons to be suspicious of continued military occupation of Iraq to ostensibly protect the inhabitants of the land we illegally and unjustly invaded. Under these circumstances, shrill characterizations of those who oppose your proposal cheapen the discourse, and history.
Dr. Cole --
Perhaps rather than "looney left" some other term could have been used. Off the top of my head, I can't think of one, though :-/.
There is a lot of frustration on the part of those who didn't want to invade Iraq to begin with. I know part of me (the purely political animal part) wants Bush to be stuck, like velcro, with the mess he made. Unfortunately, there are lots of lives at stake, so the more practical and dare I say, idealistic part of me thinks the position that Dr. Dean and Rep. Murtha, for example, have staked out makes a great deal of sense (though we're still left with the problem of U.S. military in the middle east as an irritant).
The other thing here that might be different from the situation in Afghanistan you cite in your diary is that there was no overt neocon agenda at the time, no Project for a New American Century, etc. It may be just as (more?) important in the big picture to defeat the neocons through showing the bankruptcy of their policies of empire through a "defeat" in Iraq, as to stay there, especially given the neocons are still in power dictating policy.
I'm hoping none of my readership considers itself on the looney left, so I can't see how any of them could be insulted by the language. I'm referring to a discourse that always thinks anything the US or the US military does is always evil and always worse than anything anyone else could do. When Saddam massacred the Shiites and put them in mass graves, none of these observers on the far left said anything at all about it.
You seem to set up a straw man argument here. If I remember correctly, the left was very much against what Saddam did. The Nation ran editorials against the US support of Iraq. Likewise, what faction of the left thinks that what the US does is worse than what anyone else does? I don't hear anyone making that argment. I think the argument is that we should be more concerned about what the US does because we are US citizens and have a duty to change abuses.
Really, the term "loony left" is in itself loony because, as vague and insulting as it is, it doesn't help your argument.
Professor Cole:
During my participation in another forum (not related to politics in anyway) somebody brought up AE Van Vogt's "Right Man Theory." It goes something like this:
"He (the Right Man) is a man driven by a manic need for self-esteem — to feel that he is a ‘somebody.’ He is obsessed by the question of ‘losing face,’ so he will never, under any circumstances, admit that he might be in the wrong. . . . the Right Man is an ‘idealist’ — that is, he lives in his own mental world and does his best to ignore aspects of reality that conflict with it. Like the Communists’ rewriting of history, reality can always be ‘adjusted’ later to fit his glorified picture of himself. . . . The Right Man hates losing face; if he suspects that his threats are not being taken seriously, he is capable of carrying them out, purely for the sake of appearances. . . . the central characteristic of the Right Man is the decision to be out of control, in some particular area."
This seems to describe the neocons prefectly especially Bush as well as Cheney and others in the current administration.
Juan,
"Looney Left?" I don't consider myself 'L.L.' but I don't think saying "Bring them home now" qualifies me as such either. Are you saying that anyone who thinks thusly is in fact "looney." I'll admit to being further Left than you but I don't think you can draw the line indicating where "looney" begins. Plenty of folks to the Right of you would draw the line in such a place as to leave you among the loonies. You also appear to have decided that everyone in the BTHN camp hates the U.S.. Youo really believe that?
I'm not about to attack you for your position and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're referring directly to those who are attacking you.
However, if we now have to take responsibility for the mess we've made in Iraq with the invasion why should it stop there? Don't we have a responsibility to undo the damage we've done throughout the world over a longer time period? That's not to say that we've ONLY done bad things but the list of them is long and stretches way back. Also, is the perpetrator of horrible acts really the best candidate for fixing things? It seems the "fixer" would require the credibility we've long since lost.
Also, the "looney left" didn't say anything about the disasters in Afghanistan or successes in the Balkans? This reminds me of Republicans who ask, "where were you when Clinton did this or that?" For one, some of us didn't have access to computers or the internet (if it even existed at the time) and I think qualifies as a 'straw man' argument.' Blogs certainly weren't plentiful. And is this statement the result of a Lexis Nexis search or is it because you didn't read any such criticism yourself? It seems that some who use such arguments feel that if they weren't exposed to these statements they must not have happened.
I also think it's debatable whether or not the Kosovo intervention was a success in light of the acceleration of 'ethnic cleansing' and massive civilian casualties among Serbians as well as infrastructure damage caused by the bombing campaign. This isn't to say that some form of intervention was necessary but the triumphalism regarding this particular NATO action seems to ignore the belated nature and imperfect execution. The obsession with not taking friendly casualties probably led to greater levels of civilian deaths and eventually the failed policy in Iraq of using too few troops. Demonization of entire nations and their populations makes such things easier to swallow and is a big reason there isn't much sympathy for Iraqi victims of the war. The silence of the Right in the face of similar destruction in the Reagan years and onward is no reason to let the Left off the hook but was certainly as 'deafening.'
I really appreciate you adding a comments section and I hope this qualifies as entering the debate as opposed to attacking you. You're the one person I read every day if I can. I can understand if you feel I should leave such comments for my own blog (which I only just created since one needs to be 'signed up' to participate in the comments) and will respect your wishes whatever they may be.
It must be frustrating to be under attack from all sides and I greatly admire you for taking such a public position regarding your beliefs.
Your right about the loonie left. I deal with them every day. They are all around me here in Seattle and don't care anymore about the death and suffering of Iraqis than the loony right does. They will deny it of course, but neither group has the frame of reference to process the concept of a civil war. The right has no empathy beyond the reach of their fingertips, and the left cannot imagine the slaughter of translators, laundry workers, cooks and other collaborators when we leave, followed by fighting at the regional level, breaking down until it reaches the tribal level. Then the Turks, Iranians, Saudis, Syrians will be pulled in at the "request" of their minorities and a CF of biblical proportions begins.
Your articles make the most sense of all that I have read on our fiasco in Iraq and surrounding countries. I only wish that posts like this one were required reading for this entire administration, as well as the cable news hosts, such as Chris Matthews, etc. Don't think Faux would be interested, facts being somewhat foreign to them.
Interesting point about US companies not being interested in failed states. Heritage Oil, the Canadian company with the deal in Kurdistan, specialises in failed states.
It was closely linked in a number of African countries to mercenary outfits that offered their services in return for resource concessions.
http://tinyurl.com/82fq2
From the Looney left again.
The US needs a simple plan coated with a thick layer of gravitas.
Here's a simple plan:
A bargain is reached between the Sunni camp (insurgents and political leaders) and the Shiite/Kurd camp(and its US trained military arm).
The bargain being that the Sunni camp will destroy or expel Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiites/Kurd camp will throw the American military out.
While Al Qaeda in Iraq accounts for a small fraction of the military violence, it accounts for 99% of the "Stay the Course" rhetoric. Get rid of it and the baloon deflates quickly. Coat the plan with the gravitas I mentioned earlier and we can leave in dignity - White House
spin applied as required.
Of course the simple plan is classified "Top Secret".
OK. It was a mistake for me to use that phrase "looney left." I actually really was more or less referring to Trotskyites and the like, but perfectly honorable anti-war folks developed a suspicion I meant them. Sorry. I was focused on the "looney," and readers focused on the "left." Geez. I should hope that *I* am a man of the Left. I wasn't saying *that* is looney.
Sherm's plan is remarkably similar to William Lind's
I remember Bill from back in the day when we were both youngsters, he on Sen Robert Taft's staff as Defense LA....brilliant man, very conservative...
There's goes your reputation Sherm..or your political compass
As expected, the republican reaction to the "We can't win" sentence is harsh.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/5/234519.shtml?et=y
"Dean should be hung"
It seems to me you and Dean's idea of "winning smart" is just Vietnamisation by another name:
1) withdraw substantially from the country
2) Build up indigenous forces
3) rely on airpower and special forces to support (2)
I sincerily doubt it will prevent civil war (actually, it seems to have already begun) and the US when using airpower or special forces has never been that concerned about civilian casualties.
As with Vietnam, any prolonged US involvement, of any kind, will make matters worse not better.
Incidently, my experiences with "the loony left" (sic) are that it was them who did draw attention to the massacres under Saddam's regime, from the chemical attacks on Kurds to the slaughter of the Marsh arabs and Shiites after Gulf War I.
(It makes no sense either to smear these people as only being concerned about US atrocities and thus not in Saddam's atrocities, when for the majority of his regime, he was a US puppet! )
As I am decidedly not "a man of the Left", loony or otherwise, I'll pass bemusedly on that squabble (although I'm not sure any Trostkyites remain on the left, I thought they were all at AEI and the Weekly Standard).
Regarding Dean's comments, which seems to pattern Murtha's, my only critique is that war policy does not really seem an area in which an unelected party bureaucrat ought to be speaking and outshining the elected Democrats. I suppose it's because of Dean's role as a catalyst for antiwar feeling in the Democratic Party in 04, but since he won't be running for office any time soon, I'd think it would be wiser for the Dems to leave those critiques to the officeholders.
I also think it's unwise for war opponents to concede the notion that a US withdrawal will lead to chaos or civil war. Our continued occupation of Iraq permits a "low-intensity" civil conflict to be carried out by all parties (although it sure seems pretty high intensity given the bodies piling up) without fear of the consequences of provoking a wider, more devastating conflict. In other words, the talk of an inevitable civil war is, to me, unproven speculation. It is just as reasonable to assume that the parties would be deterred from such a suicidal conflict and instead work out a distasteful, if acceptable, pragmatic solution. None of the parties are insane or stupid. They are quite reasonably using the cover of the American occupation to pursue their personal interests. Since the US is there to keep the lid on the powder keg, the parties feel free to provoke if they believe it serves their interests.
We need to withdraw, at least to Kuwait and Qatar, in order to remove the artifical conditions that prevent the application of mutual deterrence to the parties in Iraq. Far from provoking a civil war, I believe a prompt, orderly withdrawal will force them to make the hard pragmatic choices to avoid a destructive conflict in which they all know they'd lose.
Of course, this really just goes to the issue of "what to do now that we're in this mess." That the Iraq war was a stupid, unnecessary, unconstitutional, strategic blunder that has compromised the security of country, both financially and militarily, goes without saying.
I am inclined to agree with the characterization of Alexander Cockburn's comments about Juan's ideas on how to mitigate the disastrous situation in Iraq as being looney. I not have read any specific references in the comments here that suggest that those who are insulted by the "looney left" label have read Cockburn's comments. I wonder.... How many regular readers of Informed comment would agree with Cockburn's critique?
A sample (from http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11262005.html );
"What Cole is recommending is very similar to what the British did in Iraq after the rebellion of 1920. They relied on airpower and "Bomber Harris", the man in charge of the RAF effort made no effort to conceal that he was going after civilians and their villages."
Cockburn is assuming (probably correctly) that whichever Iraq policy is pursued by the Bush administration will kill many more innocent Iraqi civilians, and be more misguided and counterproductive than many liberals would expect.
Unfortunately, Cockburn has no viable plan for averting the massive disruption and civil and/or regional war that will likely come after a rapid pullout, while we are stuck with the knuckleheads who "conceived" this debacle setting Iraq policy for another three years.
We must work diligently to wrest power from the Bush administration and to fight for policies that will mitigate the damage caused by them!
The longer we stay in Iraq, the higher the likelihood of an all out civil war. Currently, those who join the police or Iraqi military are viewed as collaborators, not only by the Sunnis and pro Saddam forces, but by many Shia as well.
By redploying, the old gaurd loses a big piece of propaganda, and will be faced with fighting a civil war against better equiped and overwhelming forces.
That said, there's going to be ethnic and religious score settling whether we're there or not. It won't go away anytime soon.
BTW, I like the term "Winning Smart." The strategy is a hell of a lot better than Bush's losing dumb plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home