False conclusions
The Republican Party is leaping at the opportunity to paint Democrats as being soft on matters of national security because of Sen. Joe Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary, but this is a completely wrongheaded way to look at the results of the election and only show an ever-growing disconnect with most American voters (well, most American voters who don't live in the South).
For this singular election to be 'proof' than it would have to be that an increasingly unpopular and terribly mismanaged war and occupation - with the crux of the violence that is currently ongoing being that of secretarian conflicts between Iraqis, suggesting a move toward civil war - is essential to protecting our nation.
That simply isn't the case.
One can make a coherent argument that the issues in Lebanon and North Korea and Iran and Afghanistan are vital to American security, and if that's the case than the Republican leadership has a lot to answer for. However, Iraqi Shiites killing Iraqi Sunnis and vice versa, is more of a regional conflict than anything else.
Even if you do take just the Iraq example, the only logical conclusion the average voter can make is to determine 'well, they say Democrats are weak on security, but Lord knows Republicans aren't doing a bang-up job either.'
Now, I don't want the U.S. to immediately withdraw from Iraq, but it's not because I think the situation is absolutely imperative to American security or because it would mean that Democrats would be wrongly perceived as being 'weak.' Rather I think we should stay because, quite frankly, we went into that country, destroyed its infrastructure and replaced its government.
I subscribe to the Colin Powell-theory of military engagement - we broke it, we bought it. Granted, we're not doing the best job in our ownership, but that doesn't mean we should just pick up, leave and let the country descend into further chaos.
We owe to the Iraqi people to at least try and put their nation back together. If it's in their best interests that we leave, than I hope that will become apparent.
For this singular election to be 'proof' than it would have to be that an increasingly unpopular and terribly mismanaged war and occupation - with the crux of the violence that is currently ongoing being that of secretarian conflicts between Iraqis, suggesting a move toward civil war - is essential to protecting our nation.
That simply isn't the case.
One can make a coherent argument that the issues in Lebanon and North Korea and Iran and Afghanistan are vital to American security, and if that's the case than the Republican leadership has a lot to answer for. However, Iraqi Shiites killing Iraqi Sunnis and vice versa, is more of a regional conflict than anything else.
Even if you do take just the Iraq example, the only logical conclusion the average voter can make is to determine 'well, they say Democrats are weak on security, but Lord knows Republicans aren't doing a bang-up job either.'
Now, I don't want the U.S. to immediately withdraw from Iraq, but it's not because I think the situation is absolutely imperative to American security or because it would mean that Democrats would be wrongly perceived as being 'weak.' Rather I think we should stay because, quite frankly, we went into that country, destroyed its infrastructure and replaced its government.
I subscribe to the Colin Powell-theory of military engagement - we broke it, we bought it. Granted, we're not doing the best job in our ownership, but that doesn't mean we should just pick up, leave and let the country descend into further chaos.
We owe to the Iraqi people to at least try and put their nation back together. If it's in their best interests that we leave, than I hope that will become apparent.
posted by Jmac at 5:47 PM
11 Comments:
I figured if any post could stir you from your hibernation Corleone, it would be one involving the words 'Iraq' or 'Lieberman' ... though bonus points for the use of the word 'flummoxed.'
I have talked to some soldiers who were in Iraq, though we haven't gotten into long, detailed discussions about who's to blame for destroying Iraq's roads and water systems. Though it's laughable to think that in the U.S.-led invasion, our attack didn't impact their infrastructure. In war, you knock out strategic targets ... some of these are roads or power stations or air bases. This has happened in every war for the past several hundred years.
These soldiers do all agree that Saddam was a horrible human being, and I don't dispute that one bit (and didn't do so in my posting).
The criticism can be directed in two ways ...
1. Was a horrible Saddam a security threat?
2. Forget Saddam, what about the actual situation on the ground in Iraq right now?
The first one is rather irrelevant now, isn't it? The second one, however, is pertinent to this discussion.
And, judging by the patterns emerging from the violence in Iraq, it's becoming apparent a secretarian conflict might explode. My argument was that a regional conflict between Iraqis is less dangerous to U.S. security than, say, any of the other scenarios I laid out.
Not that I'm here to absolutely defend Democratic foreign policy ... I think the party needs to work on building a coherent and contrasting global vision, but that doesn't mean the Republican version is any better. It's just the only version being applied right now.
BTW ... the Lieberman-Churchill parallel is hysterical. I needed a good laugh early in the morning.
Well, I don't think Lamont is Chamberlain either.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether or not allowing Saddam to stay in power would be beneficial or deterimental, I think solid arguments can be made on both sides.
In theory, Saddam remaining in power would have resulted in the following scenarios ...
• Since we now know he wasn't pursuing a nuclear or chemical weapons program at the time, he was not an immediate threat to the U.S.;
• He also was effectively contained by the U.N. through the no-fly zone, restrictions on his military capabilities, economic sanctions and the weapons inspections;
• A contained Saddam could offer no assistance to nations like Lebanon or Iran;
• Furthermore, Saddam was at ideological and religious odds with the other nations in region, with their only similarities being their dislike of the U.S.;
• The lack of American action in Iraq wouldn't have sent significant concern through places like Iran and North Korea who have both admitted to ramping up their nuclear weapons programs because of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq;
• It also wouldn't have further agitated an already volatile situation in the Middle East;
• Not committing more than 200,000 U.S. soldiers to Iraq would have allowed this personnel to be used in different perimeters in the region, all in the war against terrorism.
Now, let me be clear, these are hypotheticals based on the evidence that we now know exists. There are just as many hypotheticals which can be hashed out suggesting it would have been detrimental if Saddam was allowed to remain in power.
My point in suggesting that debates over whether we should or shouldn't have gone in are irrelevant is that the ongoing situation has to be addressed. Whether we like it or not, U.S. troops are there and Iraq is teetering on the edge of civil war.
How best to address that situation is most imperative, which is why I think so many Republicans revert back to the 'Saddam was a bad guy' line of argument ... because there are no easy answers to fixing Iraq's current problems. The current plan of action endorsed by Republican is not terribly successful, but no counterplan by Democrats or moderates is that strong either (which is why, I think, a lot of folks are now saying we should withdraw troops).
I just think, as you've done before, are attributing 'weak on defense' to either opposition against the Iraq war or, in my case, questions about mismanagement of the Iraq war. However, opposition to this conflict is wholly different than opposition to conducting a global war against terrorism (one, by the by, isn't just about sending armies into battle).
So should we take the offensive to the terrorists? Of course, but the broader argument is what is the most effective way of doing so? Is lobbing laser-guided missiles into crowded cities the best way? Is freezing assets the best way? How about covert raids by special forces? Maybe working to combat global poverty?
It could all of the above or a mixture of some.
If you kill four terrorists and 18 innocent civilians, the chances are good that some of the relatives of those innocent civilians will harbor feelings of resentment and hatred against those who killed their families. And, if they're in a place like Lebanon where Hezbollah runs the southern region of the country, the chances are also good this delicate mind could be swayed into becoming a terrorist.
It's a cycle of violence, and we have to be careful to not try to feed it.
The point is that whenever someone is playing offense, someone is always playing defense ... and they're thinking about how they can get the ball back.
I don't think those Democrats have vanished at all. But doesn't defending liberty mean more than just waging war? Doesn't it also mean expanding economic opportunity and protecting civil rights and offering alternatives to the children in the madrasses who are choosing a life of hate and destruction?
You quote John F. Kennedy, but Kennedy spent a large portion of his administration on spreading goodwill in the name of America through the Peace Corps and other international efforts.
Not that I'm a pure pacifist by any means. It's been noted here that a little more hawkish than my fellow liberal readers, but defending the ideals you cite - ones I endorse - is more than just sending in brave young men and women to combat.
On containment, you cite the Taliban, which wasn't really an effective strategy of containment to be fair as it only involved economic sanctions, and I cite the half-century struggle against communism. The goal was to check Soviet expansion, not go in headstrong and change the regime.
Containment, on the average, won't work in five years. It's a long-term plan designed to change the culture and society of the contained entity.
Again ... we're back to this disconnect ... I think that the invasion of Iraq is wholly separate from the War on Terror (and I think most of the evidence we have supports that). I haven't come across anyone who suggests we shouldn't fight the terrorists or defend our country.
People who want to kill innocent civilians to justify and misguided, flawed and extremist religious agenda need to be stopped ... but, again, how we stop them is the key.
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... defending our national security is more than just being willing to brazenly march off to war. Don't forget, the same Kennedy, the one whose greatest military triumph was not waging war against Cuba in 1962, you quote also said this:
I look forward to a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose.
I'm inclined to agree with dawgC on the infrastructure issue. While we did destroy some of it, We've been in the process of rebuilding it for a while now. The lack of infrastructure is attributable to Saddam's criminal, plunderous regime.
When the former Soviet Union fell, reporters lamented the lack of ifrastructure "caused" by the fall of communinsm. In reality, the lack of power, roads, hospitals, etc. was a direct result of the bankrupt Soviet system.
"This is the time let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
If that is indeed the case, where was the Declaration of War against Iraq from the Republican Congress? Where was the gasoline rationing? Where was the 'buy-bonds-not-retail' tightening of belts that comes with waging a "pay any price, bear any burden" type of war? Where was the draft re-instated, where was the clarion call for the millions of young people to show up and fold into basic?
Because that's what you're talking about when you talk about 'pay any price.' That's what you're talking about when mouthpieces like Kristol and Kaplan start agitating for a four front war involving Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria with the "Army we have." We would need a wartime economy and 30 million boots to take and occupy and hold and rebuild these nations. And we'd need allies like France going in with us shoulder to shoulder.
Now, if that's what we've got to do, that's what we've got to do and we can't shy away from it. But it doesn't look like Republicans have the political will to do what it takes, either.
But this lack of political will betrays the final truth of all this mess: Iraq is a war of choice. To win a war of choice with a Democracy, you have to have clearly stated strategic goals and a well defined finish line so everyone - our troops in the field and our voters at home - know how close we are to winning. As of right now, nearly 4 years into this latest chapter of war in Iraq, we still do not see that finish line.
If that is indeed the case, where was the Declaration of War against Iraq from the Republican Congress? Where was the gasoline rationing? Where was the 'buy-bonds-not-retail' tightening of belts that comes with waging a "pay any price, bear any burden" type of war? Where was the draft re-instated, where was the clarion call for the millions of young people to show up and fold into basic?
For the record, I for one think this is an excellent point. Republicans aren't exactly "paying any price," either...they're sending other people's kids off to die and then self-congratulating about the fact that "at least they are willing to fight the war on terror." Repubs want to throw troops at foreign problems, as though that by itself will fix things, much like how Dems want to throw money at domestic problems, as though that will fix things. In both cases we are going more with what makes us "feel" like we are doing some good than with an actual sound policy.
"People died because of you; the war lasted longer than it otherwise would have, because you would rather have defeated George Bush than defeat terrorists."
People died because of me. That's what you're saying. You're making this very personal and I can see where some folks would take extreme exception that you and people like you would rather lay blame at my feet. Maybe this should give you a glimpse as to why folks on the left are angry: not only are y'all's 'policies' not working, y'all are blaming us for their failure because we disagree with you. As for myself, I just take this line of reasoning as absurd.
The left is losing us this war? That is nothing more than ridiculous. The war in Iraq is being prosecuted by a Republican President, a Republican Congress and a Republcian Secretary of Defense. If you have a problem with people dying and the war taking as long as it is, my suggestion is that you take it up with the people in charge.
We're not scared of Dubya's policies working - if they worked, we wouldn't even be talking about them. We're talking about them because Dubya's policies are not working and have not been.
You think terrorists are 'heartened' by Connecticut primary voters? I'd think terrorists are more heartened by the fact that the US, with a President whose only platform is to fight terrorism, with a Congress whose only issue is to fight terrorism, with a Department of Defense whose mission is to fight terrorism - can't figure out a strategy to fight terrorism.
And to matters of history:
"But he kept his eyes on the prize, and today the Soviet Union is but a memory, indeed consigned, as he said it would be, to the ash heap of history."
I wasn't aware that Reagan was our only Cold War President. I wasn't aware that Reagan ended the Cold War by pre-emptively invading the 'Empire of Evil.' I give Reagan plenty of credit for the very positive way the Cold War did finally end (it could have ended a lot worse), but there are plenty of others who share the accolades for all of that, including Margaret Thatcher, John Paul the Great, & Mikhail Gorbachev. But I reckon that makes me the historical revisionist.
I am also aware that Reagan was fighting the war on terror, even back in the day. I might have been a snot nosed kid at the time, but I remember hearing about our Marines in Beirut in 1983, the Achille Lauro in 1985, Pan Am 103 in 1988.
All this during the same years we were sending money and weapons to the people we are fighting now in Iraq and Afganistan, and the same people who hit us so hard on September 11th.
And that's what makes criticism of Reagan different from criticism of Dubya. Reagan, for better or for worse, made his mistakes in order to win the greater and more important Cold War. Dubya is making the same mistakes, and appears to be oblivious as to why things aren't going the way he wants them to.
Did Reagan lead some sort of military invasion against the Soviet Union that we all have just conveniently forgotten about?
Did the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan magically vanish? Did the Soviet grain and wheat drought never happen?
Did Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter all decrease military spending while the world slept?
Because in order for your 'Reagan looked beyond containment' theory to work, those scenarios must have happened.
It was RR who told Gorby to tear down the wall, as opposed to past Presidents, who asked politely and timidly that we learn to live with the folks imprisoned behind it.
Really?
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin.
There are some who say that Communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin.
And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.
And there are even a few who say that it is true that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin!
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.
I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years.
I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin.
- President John F. Kennedy at the Berlin Wall, June 26, 1963
We'll talk about making room in South Dakota for Reagan after Kennedy and FDR get put up there.
Post a Comment
<< Home