For the record, I DO believe it is possible for the American military to be defeated on the battle field, even if the cause is just. An informed friend (Afghanistan vet, retired special forces soldier with Middle Eastern heritage) tells me that our enemies in this guerilla war are battle-hardened, but perhaps more importantly, they're life-hardened--hardened by their life circumstances such that they can endure worse circumstances, and also hardened such that they place a different value on "life"--their own lives and the lives of others.
So, even assuming the cultural pre-eminence which is fostered by American exceptionalism, I disagree with Sean Hannity, for example, when he asserts that we cannot be defeated on the battle field. Accordingly, I don't think that someone is dissing our troops just because s/he says that we can't win in Iraq.
That being said, I don't believe most critics of Dubya's strategery in the GWOT are concerned about "winning" in Iraq. The reality is that a disproportionately powerful minority of Democrats are opposed to use of force under any circumstance, so, they really are fine with warmongers losing wars . . . you know, it "serves 'em right."
I think the balance of the critics consider the likelihood of prevailing in Iraq to be a toss up; thus, it is worth it for the long-term interests of the Democrat Party (and, likewise, America's interests!) to oppose Bush at every turn. Public sentiment has shifted on the war (certainly due to persistent, partisan, poisonous, peevish criticism from the Left), now there is little to no incentive to stay on board with "Bush's war."
Bush's recent changes in our Iraq strategery may not work, but absent any alternative proposals from Democrats, and based on their record of bad-faith dealings since the Iraq invasion, I'd have to say they lack credibility.
Hello world!
7 years ago
23 comments:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Armed Services Committee: “I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq.” Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was “no expert on military matters.” Again, thats our DEFENSE SECRETARY talking.
And you have the balls to criticize Democrats for their opposition to such 'expertise'?
Well, you don't have any cojones; that or you have 'em and you have a sissy name.
Gee, who to make the CEO of the Defense Dept. . . . hmmm, maybe Kerry's available? Or maybe one of the Fightin' Dems from the cherry-picked list referenced yesterday is available?
I hope the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate will reject this plainly incompetent and incapable person to be SecDef!! Oops, they didn't.
Most Democrats have opposed this war for some time, and many of them have been calling for a reduction of troops...so why is it simply "opposing Bush" when they don't support a plan to INCREASE the levels of troops; completely counter to what they have been calling for.
I neither support or oppose Bush's escalation of the war; but I do think this would be a good opportunity to set forth specific goalposts for what constitutes a "victory" in Iraq. I also think that we should consider moving Iraqi Army recruits out of the country to do training, so that they might be less afraid of retaliation while in training.
If Bush is unwilling to create specific goals, or do anything other than increase US forces to hold positions we take over; than I will oppose his plan as shortsighted and incomplete.
Sean, Good ideas about what to do next--esp. moving Iraqis in training out of theatre.
But exactly how long have "most Democrats . . . opposed this war"? I think ideas like yours vs. charges of war crimes would be more constructive, assuming it is a legitimate objective to take the fight to our enemies and assuming that there is only one commander-in-chief.
Over the past 2 years, most Democrats have come to oppose this war. At the time of the original vote, it was split about 50/50 with 21 Senate Dems and 126 House Dems voting against the blank check. Since then, many more have jumped onto the bandwagon in various ways; typically with ideas in between all out withdrawal/redeployment and redrawing the map of the Middle East.
As for the assertion about "taking the fight to our enemies". I think that is the number one problem. I believe the invasion of Iraq was largely based around the "Flypaper Theory" that if we invaded we would bring in "terrorists" from around the region so that we could fight them in an open territory, as opposed to the cavernous/mountainous areas of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I don't think the neo-conservatives took into account the amount of new "Jihadists" or Mujahadeen our invasion would "create".
Iraq has seemingly become the new Afghanistan of the 80s. Muslims from all around the region feel that our invasion/occupation of Iraq is an invasion of their "holy land", and that they must fight us to be good Muslims. I have a feeling, that if another country invaded Canada, many Americans would feel the same.
The problem is, we need to make peace with the Jihadists/Mujahadeen, while at the same time continuing to kill/capture the Al Qaeda-esque terrorists who will take their newly gained battle-skills across the sea to America. I don't think our presence in the Iraq is reducing the chances of an attack on America, to the contrary, I think we have created a proving ground for terrorists, whereby they start out with the "insurgency" movement, and those who prove themselves really good, are slowly picked off by Al Qaeda to do missions around the world.
It's a bit silly to think that Al Qaeda can't spare 50-100 fighters in Iraq to have them come over and do damage around the world.
So our mission at this point, would be to somehow convince those who have fought against us, and by extension the Iraqi Gov't, that there is a future for them in a Democratic Iraq. That will be a bitter pill for both sides of the aisle to swallow, but in order to seperate the true believers from those who just wanted to do the right thing by their God; we need to give them a way out.
Most Conservatives (not necessarily Neo-Cons) will take the position that we should (or can) kill all those opposed to us. That is not realistic, that is watching too many John Wayne movies. Instead, we must make hard value judgements about what we want to accomplish, and what we are willing to allow slide in order to accomplish our tasks. If our mission is to make the American homeland safer, than we must find a way to bring the Muslims in the Middle East onto our side, or at the very least make them ambivilent, so that our WOT appears more like a war against Terrorists, and not just a war against Muslims.
Can that be accomplished given our distrust of so many Arab/Persian governments? I doubt it, but we've got to try. If we remain inflexable, we might as well just pack up, leave, and secure the hell out of America...because we can't bomb the Middle East into submission, we need to make them believe that we are their friends. I don't think GWB has done a good job of it, and I don't think he can turn it around in the next 2 years.
My personal hope, is that if Barack Obama (whose Father was an African Muslim) is elected, Muslims around the world will begin to open up to the United States, and realize that we are not all a bunch of Christian Cowboys hell bent on converting the world into Christianity. Muslims in the Middle East haven't always hated America, and there is no reason to believe that over time they can't be won back over.
What the public thinks:
President Bush Job Approval
January 12, 2007
Just 35% of Americans now approve of the way that George W. Bush is performing his role as President. That’s the lowest level of Approval ever measured by Rasmussen Reports.
Two other polls post all-time lows:
CBS - 30%
AP/IPSOS - 32%
Where's Bush going?
Down
Down
Down
Let's talk about credibility.
Sean, I think you make some great points, and I don't disagree that there is some level of Realpolitik that is necessary . . . many Liberals, sadly, are demonizing such philosophies.
In addition, I've always thought it was noble but not likely that we could establish a democracy in Iraq. I kind of think that we are operating (in the modern world) that there is a "humane" way to fight a war.
But I don't see a way to "make peace" with Islamists (even if they don't call themselves Al Qaeda). It seems to me that this Islamist movement has been building for several decades and has reached a level of development that cannot be ignored.
And the relative ease of developing, funding and delivering WMDs in our day seems to demand that we can't just hunker down in the homeland and expect the problem to go away. I think that Islamism is every bit as incidious as Nazism or Communism, and that something along the lines of a Truman Doctrine is warranted.
But your comments about Obama, that is almost like the parody I hear of Liberals' view about foreign policy--"maybe we can get them to like us."
Bush has NEVER intimated that we desire to convert Muslims to Christianity--frankly he has been exceedingly tolerant or magnanimous regarding Islam (you know, the "religion of peace"?) Of course, the fact that Bush's motives and objectives have incessantly been impugned from the Left in America (and cut and pasted into Islamist propaganda) doesn't enhance our international reputation.
All of which hurts approval numbers--is that what y'all are most interested in Anonymous? Pardon me for concluding that based on your 24/7 campaign to undermine him.
Who needs a campaign to undermine Bush, he's doing very well at it himself.
You just don't get the idea that the "Truman Doctrine" doesn't work with "Islamists" as you call them. Islamic fundamentalist 'death to America' ideology exists everywhere including in allied countries (ie Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc...) . You can't 'invade an ideology', like invading Nazi Germany.
You see no way to make peace with 'Islamists,' so fight them to the death right? Sounds real Christ-like. Disparaging Islam in general is rascist and narrow- minded.
I believe there are ways to negotiate symbiotic relationships with 'enemies' (like China). This is a war of ideology. Eventually, America's positive economic and cultural influences as a free marketplace of ideas could appeal to the populations of countries like Iran, (particularly the young people) ... as it did in the USSR. International and regional forces must be brought to bear on belligerent dictators like in Iran and N Korea. We can ONLY do that with strong alliances and help from the UN. America can't afford be the world police. We can't possible kill all our enemies. What's the alternative Cowboy? Wanna nuke 'em? Is that what Jesus would do?
Islamist (as I them), look it up.
If you can't invade an ideology, how do you negotiate with it?
Sometimes you do have to fight enemies to the death . . . did we negotiate with Hitler or Hirohito?
I'm not sure what Jesus would do . . . is He running for President? But I thought I was the one that wants a theocracy . . why don't you keep your religion to yourself?
(Sorry if you're a different Liberal Anonymous from the one above--but that kind of goes with the territory of not signing your work I guess)
Ned,
There was an interesting article in The Atlantic Monthly a while back about Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi. It basically described the path he led to becoming Al Qaeda's top guy in Iraq. Basically, he started out working in a video store, and through many turns of fate ended up the top Jihadist in Iraq. But also in that article (I believe it was that one, could've been another), they talked about Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization. Basically, there were two trains of thought in the 90s. Most Jihadists/Mujahadeen, felt that it was against Islam to go wage wars in Foreign Countries, instead that you should only attack invaders into Muslim countries. Bin Laden felt that you must take the fight to the enemy in their homeland.
There are still those, many of whom are in Iraq, who have no desire to come to America and attack us, so long as we don't invade their land. I think those are the people we can, if not win over, at least make them ambivalent towards us, so that we can focus on the "special forces" type terrorists who will come to American soil and inflict the most harm on the populace as possible. I don't believe that all those fighting us in Iraq are Evil, I think many think they are doing the right thing. We need to find a way to convince them that standing against that we are not against them, and that we have no desire to control their destiny.
As per Obama, I don't think the Al Qaeda Terrorists will "like" us if he is elected, by I think those Muslims in the Middle East who are on the verge of becoming Jihadists, might be more open to what we have to say that when the Cowboy in Chief speaks. While I agree that Bush has no desire (at least in an official capacity) to convert the Middle East, I think his invasion of Iraq proved right a lot of what people like Bin Laden were saying. That America wants to take over their countries and install puppet regimes; much like the Soviet Union in the 80s.
I'll try to find and read that article, but the problem I see with your strategy is Israel, and Islamists' stated goal of pushing Israelis into the sea.
Coupled with that, I think the strategy you've laid out is ignoring the burgeoning ambition of Islamists. Bin Laden's success has expanded the imagination of Jihadists worldwide--kind of like a paradigm shift, I'd say.
Those are my initial impressions, but it is interesting to hear your perspective.
Bin Laden can have all the ambition he likes, but if we reduce the resources (financial and human) from the equation, his ambition will become less of a problem.
After all, there are plenty of racists in America who want to start a racial war and make America all White (or Black or Hispanic) but they don't have the resources to make that happen. They are a concern, but nowhere near the level of Islamic Terrorists, even though their stated goals are very similar.
As per Israel, I'll grant you that is a sticky situation. But our support for Israel hasn't inflamed anti-American sentiment in the region any were near as much as our invasion or occupation of their lands.
More credibility from Bush.
The first line of that article reads, "President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq." Raises new questions? not to Pam & Co. They've known all along that Bush is a liar.
But the article (which after reading the whole thing I realize is more of an op/ed) exerts a lot of effort in "proving" that Bush is either naive or nefarious in claiming that the Golden Dome Mosque bombing was a watershed event in the sectarian violence. Bush said that the worst sectarian violence included "outrageous acts of violence against innocent Iraqis." That is a whole different level of sectarian violence than political assassinations during a war. That is a mischaracterization--either naive or nefarious, of Bush's statement/strategy.
But the op/ed writer doesn't seem to appreciate the need in a persuasive address to acknowledge challenges while imploring resolve. Unlike Liberals and some others, Bush doesn't think that the situation is so bad that it can't get worse by us cutting and running.
Oh, and Pam, I guess I should reiterate that the lack of credibility I'm referring to here is concerning how interested Dems are in prevailing in Iraq. Their (your) conduct since the moment after the Nov. election that year was to deride Bush and the strategy at every turn.
Bush was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, wrong about the troop levels necessary to win, wrong about the costs of the war, wrong about oil revenues paying for reconstruction, wrong about being greeted as liberators, wrong about the level of sectarian violence, wrong about expecting the Iraqi military to be trained in a reasonable amount of time to assume control the country.
What evidence do we have of Bush's competence?
WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TRUST HIM NOW?
Our own military doesn't trust Bush!
Only 35% of our military approve of Bush's handling of the war.
Only 41% of our military agree that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
"Their (your) conduct since the moment after the Nov. election that year was to deride Bush and the strategy at every turn."
What should they be applauding him for?
Sean, Anonymous person,
There is a difference between disagreeing and deriding/defaming--(you will learn that now that your folks are trying to accomplish something other than hurting your opponent's poll numbers).
But again, the point of the post was that there is little reason to believe that Democrats are as concerned about succeeding in Iraq as they are about succeeding in polling precincts. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see.
More credibility.
Remember Fred Kagan, an American Enterprise Scholar who “has the president’s ear” on Iraq and crafted the escalation plan?
Fred Kagan – the guy is not a military expert. He has a Ph.D in history, area of expertise - the 19th century Russian military. His only major scholarly book is on Napoleon from 1801-5. He has no background in contemporary military or anti insurgency ops. Yet Fox News treats him as a “military expert” His CV reveals no scholarly publications in history or political science journals in the last decade. Basically this architect of the surge is an oped/Weekly Standard writer whose only substantive military expertise is on Napoleon.
Uh, more ADHD.
"But again, the point of the post was that there is little reason to believe that Democrats are as concerned about succeeding in Iraq as they are about succeeding in polling precincts. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see."
Nov 29, '06 -
Tony Snow, White House spokesman: "Civil war? No... What you do have is sectarian violence that seems to be less aimed at gaining full control over an area than expressing differences, and also trying to destabilize a democracy -- which is different than a civil war."
Jan 15, '07
John Bolton, former US Ambassador: "The fundamental point is whether the civil war that exists now is going to continue or whether the Iraqis are going to decide to live together in one country."
Sometimes, we see through the cracks of denial.
My bad, Anonymous, I meant to say the point of the post was that there is little reason to believe that Democrats are as concerned about succeeding in Iraq as they are about succeeding in polling precincts. Maybe I'm wrong; we'll see.
Post a Comment