by von
Picking up on President Bush’s latest speech on Iraq, Kevin Drum writes:
Harry Reid, who has shown himself to be a pretty astute leader of Senate Dems, had exactly the right response: [to Bush’s speech]
Three years into the war in Iraq, with that country now experiencing a low-grade civil war, it has become increasingly clear that President Bush is content with an open-ended commitment with no end in sight for our U.S. troops and taxpayers….President Bush must accept that he has to change course, reject the notion of an open-ended commitment in Iraq, and finally develop the plan that allows our troops to begin to come home.
The phrase "open-ended commitment" is the right one to use. It’s the logical equivalent of refusing to set benchmarks for withdrawal, and it’s not something the American public is very comfortable with. An open-ended commitment during the Cold War was one thing, but Iraq is quite another. An open-ended commitment there sounds way too much like Vietnam.
One question, though. Has Reid himself proposed a "plan that allows our troops to begin to come home"? This is a genuine question. I don’t remember hearing one, but I might have missed it.
You didn’t miss it, Kevin.
Now, I lean fairly Belgravian of late, alternately flagellating myself and the Administration for our failures in Iraq. The Democrats, however, haven’t offered any alternative; as Kevin acknowledges (to his credit), this latest twist is a sound bite. Nothing can stop the Democrats from spending their (and Iraq’s) time perfecting their message for November; at the end of the day, though, "Bush got us into this mess" is not a foreign policy.
If staying the course in Iraq won’t do, what will?
I have a friend who is serving in Iraq. He just sent word that his post near Tikrit, formerly a Forward Operating Base, has had a name change. Yup, it’s a permanent base now. We’re not pulling out any time soon: they started pouring concrete months ago.
If staying the course in Iraq won’t do, what will?
Not staying the course?
Sorry: first, defining what “staying the course” actually means. Then, not doing that.
Von: The Democrats, however, haven’t offered any alternative
You mean, aside from the alternative of “Let’s quit killing Iraqi civilians, torturing Iraqis, and getting US soldiers killed, for no definable purpose, which is what Bush wants the US to keep doing from now until forever, apparently.”
It’s a considerably better alternative than the one the Republicans are proposing, which appears to be “Mess? What mess? This sticky brown stuff smells so sweet and isn’t there a freshly-painted school over there?”
Actually, I think there have been many options offered by Democrats, but they are individualistic plans, not a Democratic Party plan.
But then, of course, there really is no Republican plan, either, just a Bushian, even though everything is going down the sewer, just trust me.
Some Republicans have broken from that rote king adoration approach and talked about options, i.e. Hagel.
And finally, when an entire group is left out of the process, in this case democrats (except maybe Lieberman) it is difficult for them to actually 1) propose anything, 2) have any proposals taken seriously and 3) avoid being classed as “cut and run defeatists” or terrorist loving anti-American traitors.
The Reid plan is called Murtha.
It just can’t come out of Reid’s mouth until enough Americans are ready for it and enough RNC journos have been neutalised.
Americans are almost there.(you need 60% + momentum to make it work)
Journos are starting to move too, witness Kristol and Cookie.
You have to be patient and chose the right moment to play your hand, or the “knife in the back” people will get the upper hand.
A retreat in good order is considered one of the most difficult military maneuvers any unit can do. It requires an officer of experience and skill to pull it off. The same is true in politics. Successfully building a consensus for withdrawl from a foreign war is perhaps the most politically difficult thing a leader or a party can do. You have to time your movement with events and public sentiment or you will risk political defeat.
If you want Reid to succeed don’t heckle the man, he’s juggling chainsaws. Find a way to support him. Build the support for withdrawl and the plan will come.
The plan is not the problem. Solid supra-majority support and political cover are. Incidently this is what it took to get America out of Vietnam.
von: I agree with Northern Observer: whether or not Reid has proposed a plan, Democrats certainly have. (Murtha.)
That said, I think it was a lot easier earlier on. Then, when there was some hope that things might come right if only we did the right thing (whatever that was), it was easier for people to come forward and propose it. Not that anyone actually listened to them, but still.
Now, if you think we’ve come to a point where all the alternatives are bad, it’s a lot harder to say what exactly we should do, especially when your pronouncements have precisely no chance of affecting policy. Not that I think this lets Democrats off the hook, and, as I noted, there are Congressional Democrats who have made proposals. Still, it’s as though someone else has first set a house on fire and then let it burn out of control; at a certain point there’s not a lot you can do to salvage the situation, but there’s a fairly big downside to being tagged as the guy who says it’s hopeless.
Was there something about willpower? Or was it Will To Power? Baby, I love that way!
Did you have a better driving plan than careening off a cliff? Learn to fly? NOW who’s being unrealistic!
Also, “What’s *your* plan?” is not entirely fair.
The situation has been rendered so unworkable, through bad decision after bad decision, that there is *no* good way out. Any plan is going to have a number of very, very bad consequences. We cannot come up with a good plan; we have to assess the least awful one.
So this is a gambit, like “what’s *your* plan to fix Social Security?” — get the Democrats to put forth a plan, and merrily attack it because it will result in a lot of death and destruction.
What’s missing from this discussion is the leader admitting error, analyzing mistakes, and asking for help. No opposition figure in their right mind should offer a plan until the people who screwed it up take responsibility, accept accountability and show that they’ve learned something.
I have no illusion that’s going to happen. But no dialogue can occur until it does. It can’t be a one-way street — “Well, what’s *your* plan, dude?” And since day one, the Republican leaders have operated in one direction only — without listening to any concerns.
My own feeling is that we need to withdraw, tails between our legs or not. We can have a slowly developing civil war, with our soldiers getting shot in the middle, or we can have a civil war sooner. There’s going to be one either way.
And any terrorists that are helping the insurgents will be less welcome (and less interested) once we’re not there to shoot at anymore.
The Democrats, however, haven’t offered any alternative; * * * at the end of the day, though, “Bush got us into this mess” is not a foreign policy.
Put another way:
The Republicans, however, haven’t offered any alternative (even though few still sing the praises of Bush’s wisdom); at the end of the day, saying “Bush got us into this war so we just have to stay the course” is not a foreign policy.
I have yet to hear any Republican articulate a sensible plan for the Iraq mess. So take your own medicine and try to do something better than tell us how we just have to stick with the loser we got.
The most important thing that can be done now is for thinking people, and in particular Republicans since they are responsible for this mess, to acknowledge that the Iraq war is a mess and that the Republican ideology that got us there was dead wrong. Then just maybe we won’t dig a deeper hole; or a new one in Iran.
I don’t think the opposition party gets to have a foreign policy. You can propose a competing bill in Congress, after all, but you can’t simultaneously conduct your own negotiations with Iran and see who does better.
Domestic policy is something you can theorize about. Except at the most basic level, foreign policy is something you simply do, and either you do it well or you do it poorly. Bush is going to be president until 2009, so demanding that Harry Reid play the game of “what would you do if YOU were president” is a useless exercise.
Even if the Democrats proposed a plan for what they would do today if they were president, we get into a cycle where Bush ignores their plan, thus creating a different situation than what the Democrats would have accomplished, at which point the Democrats are once again challenged to come up with a new plan that addresses the new, Bush-created set of facts, at which point Bush ignores the new plan, etc. It’s a game that could be played forever, to no real end.
But by calling attention to this “open-ended commitment”, mightn’t you cause folks to think – “Well, we’re still in Japan and Germany 60 years after WWII – thst seems rather open-ended, too, and yet nobody is clamoring for an immediate withdrawal from Yukoska or Ramstein”
This should be tattooed on the forehead of every policy-maker in the so-called Party of Personal Responsibility, every wannabe Republican policy-maker, and every Republican pundit, wannabe or otherwise. Tattooing it up and down the spines of Democratic Congresspeople wouldn’t hurt, either.
tomaig: But by calling attention to this “open-ended commitment”, mightn’t you cause folks to think – “Well, we’re still in Japan and Germany 60 years after WWII – thst seems rather open-ended, too, and yet nobody is clamoring for an immediate withdrawal from Yukoska or Ramstein”
I would think that most folks who were historically-minded enough to think about the US’s open-ended committment to Japan and Germany would be historically-educated enough to realise that there are significant differences between the Allied occupation of Germany and Japan, and the US occupation of Iraq.
Not least, that in neither Germany nor Japan in 1948, the US airforce was not still making bombing raids on cities with consequent civilian deaths, nor were US army rounding up mass numbers of Germans and Japanese, putting them in prison camps, and torturing them.
A plan to avert civil war? Most of the country knows that ship has sailed. A plan to make things marginally better for a short time? Try:
1. Stop torturing people.
2. Stop killing civilians, no matter how many #2’s you think you get out of it.
3. Stop stealing everything in Iraq that’s not nailed down.
4. Stop pouring concrete for permanent bases.
One would think you wouldn’t actually have to enumerate the above, but for Bush and his enablers maybe you have to.
yet nobody is clamoring for an immediate withdrawal from Yukoska or Ramstein
small nitpick
Yokosuka. Had Okinawa been chosen, one has to note that people are clamoring for immediate withdrawal.
I seem to remember lots of stories about Bavarians blowing up churches in Hamburg in 1948.
Rule number four: never give anything sturdy to the Iraqis?
Rule number four: never give anything sturdy to the Iraqis?
Rule number five: Kirkuk is not Tikrit.
“Bush got us into this mess” is not a foreign policy.
“Please don’t get us into this mess”, “mess” being Iraq, was my foreign policy. “Bush got us into this mess” is my domestic electoral strategy. Kinda like color-coded terrorist (they might raise taxes) alerts invoked repeatedly in the months leading up to an election, but never in the months following an election, are Bush’s domestic electoral strategies.
Messes are useful. Foreign policy? Not so much.
Rule number six: never try to assign a point to me that I haven’t actually made. Unless you don’t mind looking silly, that is.
Slarti: Unless you don’t mind looking silly, that is.
Then perhaps you shouldn’t have made yourself look silly by assigning a point to Tim that he hadn’t actually made? Or at least, then not complaining when someone does the same to you as you’d just done upthread?
Oh, but I didn’t.
I do feel that “pouring concrete” doesn’t necessarily imply “permanent bases”, or at least not permanent bases four the US Army. Which is the implication; else why might it offend?
s/four/for
Actually, Slarti is right in regards to my “point”. I thought he was replying to susabelle at the top.
So, yes, I look silly.
Rule number seven: spartikus only looked silly for a few seconds, and almost no one was looking.
von, numerous Democrats, including the rather well-informed Jack Murtha, have proposed an as-orderly-as-possible departure, not immediate and hasty, but as-soon-as-possible. Tim’s intermediate checklist sounds pretty good too.
Now maybe you don’t like this alternative. I sure as hell don’t. I suspect that a flat-out sectarian and possibly regional war will commence, with bloodshed and tribulation that will make many Iraqis long for the calmer days of US occupation. I am also skeptical that it’s still possible to extract 130k US personnel from Iraq without a significant rise in casualty rates. Never mind their equipment. I just think that’s the best we can hope for at this point. Amputate before the gangrene goes any further.
What I am getting at here is that the milk is already spilt. The catastrophe is already in progress. The reason nobody is offering better alternatives is that there are no better alternatives. Triply not so with the current executive in charge of implementing them. Before November of 2004, it might have been possible for the American people to repudiate the Bush doctrine and salvage something (though it is not clear to me that civil war in Iraq could have been averted at any time after the first year or so). Now? The Iraqis are screwed and so are we. No amount of self-flagellation is going to change that, and neither is demanding that the Democrats (Again! Odin’s beard! I’ve spent my entire adult life trapped in this movie!) figure out how to clean up the mess that Republicans have created.
This is a stages of grief thing, von. Something you love is gone forever. If you want to get to acceptance and closure you need to stop the denial and bargaining. And I’m pretty sure that I speak for many of the people who warned against this illegal and unjust war when I say that I’d rather have spent the rest of my life eating ashes and nails than to have been proven correct about this particular question.
radish: “And I’m pretty sure that I speak for many of the people who warned against this illegal and unjust war when I say that I’d rather have spent the rest of my life eating ashes and nails than to have been proven correct about this particular question.”
You certainly speak for me.
#4 could be negotiable. If you do pour concrete, do not use KBR. Let the Iraqis design and build it. After all, they’re supposed to be the ones to use it.
radish: “And I’m pretty sure that I speak for many of the people who warned against this illegal and unjust war when I say that I’d rather have spent the rest of my life eating ashes and nails than to have been proven correct about this particular question.”
Me, too.
So, Von, did you have a plan for engaging your readers, or was the plan to drop this bomb and then cut and run?
“‘Bush got us into this mess’ is not a foreign policy” is not a foreign policy.
Me too.
I argued against the war in my pre-blogging days, but I also prayed that it would end quickly and be competently managed. In my almost child-like expectation that this administration could actually be competent.
Of course, I should have known that the very fact they were going into Iraq and leaving Afghanistan to stumble along was in and of itself a demonstration of the incompetence.
And, BTW, to all those who think that the Democrats don’t present plans and are only obstructionists, Kerry did present the framework of a plan in 2004. And he rightfully erfused to be too precise for the simple reason, as he stated, that he could not predict what the ituation would be in January, 2005, when he woudl have ahd the power to do somethign about it.
The same thing applies today. And any statement by Bush that he welcomes debate on this issue shoukld be taken for exactly what it is worth, nothing.
The typo gremlin has been at it again. Too many to correct.
(Forgot to add, have we not been here [“Arguing against the Republican policy is not a foreign policy.”] before [“as trenchant as sarcasm may be, it’s not a foreign policy.”]?)
If staying the course in Iraq won’t do, what will?
I’m in software development, which is an inexact science, and planning lengthy software development projects is a bit of an artform. One of the things that sets of my spidey-sense is a developer who starts off an estimate with “Well, if everything goes well…”.
This is the sure sign that a developer does not understand software development. Nothing ever goes well, and every good software development plan needs to take failure into account, and plan for that as well.
I’m also currently reading Gwynne Dyer’s War, and was stuck by some of the stuff on planning for combat, in that defeat and disaster must also be planned for as well. Failing to take those into consideration means catastrophy instead of orderly withrdrawal and regrouping.
When someone is at a loss as to what needs to be done other than staying the course, that seems a sign that they have been completely unable to comprehend the possibility of failure.
I think the best strategy possible at this time is to recognize that the Iraq War has been lost, and decide what can be recovered. Iraq is heading for civil war at the least, and regional conflict at the worst. The US has lost a great deal of international credibility, and nations are beginning to bypass it diplomatically, and to form new alliances at a time of great international instability. The cause of humanitarian intervention has probably been set back a decade.
Now, what can, or should, be recovered?
That, Von, is the question that should be asked before asking what course should be taken.
I think it is unfair to say the “Democrats” haven’t offered any alternative. Alternative to what? Besides, there is no one individual who is in charge of foreign poicy for “the Democrats.” If Reid offers a plan, it’s Reid’s, not “the Democrats’.”
Republicans also have no plan, with no excuse. Where is Bill Frist’s plan? I guess he supports Bush’s non-plan, which seems to be to hang on until he is out of office, and can’t be blamed for the withdrawal. Wonder how that will play if Frist (shudder) gets elected in 2008?
Blast from the Past
Chris Albritton is taking a vacation from Iraq.
“But crowing “I told you so!” — which is not even emotionally gratifying anymore — does little to solve the problem. But I don’t know what the solution is anymore. We’re a hair’s breadth away from civil war, American troops can neither stay or go without an even higher body count and we have a political process that is awash with egos, sectarian tensions and lacking in leadership. And that’s just in America. It’s even worse in Iraq.
I have to confess: I can’t see a way out of this briar patch without a whole lot more bloodshed. And at the risk of sounding defeatist — hell, I’ve been here a long time, I can say what I want — I see the likely end as defeat and ruin for Iraqis, the United States and the region.” …CA
The current 50 deaths a day will likely rise to 500. A US presence can keep it from becoming 5000, if Sistani doesn’t get too bitter about what we have done to his country. We don’t necessarily decide whether or when we leave. We may not be able to save our army. Bush will not serve out his term, nervous breakdown becoming more likely every day.
“Ruin for Iraq, the US, and the region.” No, von, the only thing Democrats need to do is to make certain the American people understand who committed this crime, so they are not allowed to gain power ever again. Partisan finger-pointing has become a moral imperative.
Let me add my voice to the chorus by saying it seems churlish of Von to declare that ‘no plan’ (where a ‘plan’ is not really possible as several have mentioned upthread) is worse than the present situation where there is either A) no plan or B) a demonstrably bad, failed plan. If your best argument is ‘well, you might do worse, you don’t really have much, do you?
Bernard brings up a good point. Some of the Republican leadership have ideas of being elected president in 2008 themselves, so why are they going along with the Bush “plan” of bumbling along mindlessly and leaving it up to the next president to figure out how to get the troops out — thus automatically becoming the person who lost the Iraq war? Do they imagine the bumbling can continue through 2016, or whenever some hapless Democrat manages to be elected and stuck with the hot potato?
My apologies for not engaging or updating; my day unexpectedly took a turn for the worse. In a short response:
1. Murtha’s plan is not the “Democratic” plan. Indeed, it has been rejected by large portions of the Democratic party.
2. Regarding a withdrawal, however structured: I agree with Belgravia, who argues persuasively that, although Iraq is not presently in a civil war, a withdrawal will precipitate one. I realize that the situation appears bad but believe me: there are much, much worse cases — which should be avoided.
3. Jes: I’ll be in London on business from April 10 through 13. If you’d like to see what a real, live American center-righty looks like, I’d be more than willing to meet for tea, crumpets, or, preferrably, beer. My schedule is TBD, unfortunately, so I can’t yet propose a time; however, mid-day on April 10 (Monday) looks best at the moment. E-mail the kitty if interested.
Von, re your statement about the “Murtha Plan”, nobody said it was the Democratic plan, just one presented by a Democrat.
But then, as many have pointed out, there is no Republican plan either.
OK Von
If we can’t leave, what is your plan for staying – it seems like more of the same isn’t likely to provide any better results than have been obtained so far, and likely things will deteriorate further. Max Boot has a plan today (see Drum) but it doesn’t seem very realistic.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to imagine what the landscape in Iraq will look like in 2008 under the likely Bush plan as an altgernative to cutting and running. My guess is essentially an afganistan scenario. Tribal warlordism with extensive meddling from outside interests.
Congress has certain oversight responsibilities regarding a war, or so we used to think in any event, but the Founding Fathers basically understood that anything akin to a war basically has to be run by one guy and his management team.
The idea that an entire political party, or a significant portion thereof, must come to agreement on a single battle plan to be taken seriously is absurd. The only reason the Republcians are given a fair pass under this standard is because they are all like “uh, whatever the president decides to do, that’s my plan.”
For a long time now, the administration has refused to set any objective benchmarks whatsoever by which it might be proven (or disproven) that we are making things better in Iraq by our presence. The fact that things, in the short term, may get worse if we leave does not mean they will get better if we stay, and it does not mean we are accomplishing anything by staying.
I don’t know why the foremost component of our national interest is to ensure that the Shiites in Iraq do not have to surrender an inch of political power to the Sunnis, but I am no longer willing to pay hundreds of billions of dollars each year to find out.
…at the end of the day, though, “Bush got us into this mess” is not a foreign policy.
And yet it is the current foreign policy of the United States of America.
Hahaha! Rest assured, the Murtha plan will almost certainly be referred to by one or more front-pagers here as “the Democrat’s plan” the next time they have a need to do so for rhetorical purposes. As surely as night follows day.
I find Von to be a straight shooter and I am sure his frustration with the Dems is genuine, but Bush and the Repubs in Congress aren’t like Von.
What would happen if tomorrow the Dems issued a 10 point plan which explained in detail what we need to do in order to disengage from Iraq over a three year period?
Does anyone think the Repubs or Bush in particular would then try to engage in an honest national dialouge about the war? I sure don’t. Bush has had the ability to do that for the last three years and he has chosen not to. What I do think would happen is the Republicans would beat the Democrats over the head with their shiny new plan.
Charlie Brown is never going to kick the football if Lucy is holding it and our country is never going to have an honest debate about Iraq as long as Dubya is in charge.
I’ll agree that von is a straight shooter, but why is he more frustrated with the Democrats’ lack of a plan than with the administration’s, considering that the administration is the one actually running the war?
Or does “keep doing what we’re doing, forever” actually count as a plan? I suppose we’ve been using a plan like that on Cuba for 40-some years, but at we’re not spending thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars doing it.
I sympathize with those who say, happily or otherwise, that this is the Republicans’ war so it’s up to THEM to figure out a way out.
It’s certainly true that any serious proposal will be viciously attacked by Republican political operatives, both because it will involve a lot of pain for a lot of people (things are so bad that there’s no way around that), and because they are desperate to distance themselves from their responsibility for the situation. Case in point is Murtha, who it is well known was articulating publicly what is being said quietly but widely among military professionals.
That being the case, why take the monkey on your own back? Do you think the Republicans would do the same if the situation was reversed?
But, if one insists on succumbing to Coastal Liberal Guilt Syndrome (if not the more serious Chardonnay-Latte Disease), then one is obliged to point out a few things:
— We cannot enforce a peace alone. It’s not clear whether our being there is by itself so much of a spur to disorder that we could do no net good even with a million troops, but the fact is, we’re politically and militarily overstretched already, and the best we can do by ourselves is to prolong the agony.
— At least in the short term, the Iraqis can’t fix it themselves, even with our help. They have no national political institutions of any competence, authority, or experience. Their only national institution, the army, is basically a collection of sectarian militias. Their political vendettas have been nurtured for centuries. The country, which after all was defined arbitrarily by the British early last century, has never been stable except under the most ruthless control. (See also “Yugoslavia, former country of”.) Even if some modus vivendi eventually can be worked out, which certainly is not guaranteed, there’s too little to build on, and too much to overcome, for that to happen at all quickly.
— The only options for us therefore are to internationalize the operation or withdraw slowly or quickly. The first obviously would be much the better, but of course it would require patient and mature leadership on our part and therefore is unlikely.
— Our government almost certainly has no intention of withdrawing entirely. The size and permanence of the military facilities we have constructed, and are continuing to construct, is the best evidence that one of their principal strategic aims was to establish a large and lasting military presence in Oil Country. This militates against any effective internationalization of the situation.
One is left with the conclusion that, to maintain a military presence, the administration intends to gradually withdraw troops — as it must for purely logistical reasons — to re-deploy the remaining troops to isolated and fortified bases, and to try to stay out of harm’s way (except to “protect” oil resources, of course) as the civil war unfolds. With enough troops home, and the civil war re-defined as “crazy Arabs fighting each other,” the media and the American body politic will gradually lose interest.
The only way to fight that is politically. Which gets us back to the original point: it’s up to the Republicans to say what to do.
Was winding myself up to a response, but find that Steve (at 5:37 p.m.) has done it more effectively than I possibly could.
I find myself in unusually complete agreement with Bob McManus, too. (2:40 p.m.)
And I should learn to refresh before posting, in that bleh’s contribution is best of all.
In other war on terror news, we’ve reached the point where the Pentagon “formally requir[ing] military prosecutors to observe a U.N. convention against torture in their use of evidence during tribunals at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp” is described as a “key change in U.S. policy”. Super.
There’s no “Democratic position” on anything. People who think there is one, or think it’s significant to point out the lack one, don’t understand what it means to be a Democrat. If you want a plan everyone has agreed to — something that can be clung to regardless of changing circumstances, become a Republican.
No, really. Pick the issue, and anyone can find prominent Dems on opposing sides in a few minutes of googling about. It’s been our fate since the time of Jefferson, through the time of Stephen Douglas, Truman, LBJ, WJC.
Bush’s open ended commitment in Iraq also sounds like a cowardly way of passing the buck to the next guy without having to admit failure.
“Bush got us into this mess” is not a foreign policy.
How about we reinstate the draft and put every single college educated male under the age of thirty who is a member of the Republican Party starting with this guy at the top of the list.
Your war, you go fight it!
I just got a survey from the DNC, asking my opinio on Iraq and offering two alternatives: stay until the country stabilizes, or leave now.
so I suppose the DNC could be assumed to be debating between those towo choices.
Just to be contrary, I wrote in “Murtha’s plan”, made my own box, and checked it.
I also sent them a hundred bucks because they have finally (finalyy!) realized that Iraq is an isue. None of the prior surveys from DNC, DCCC, or D-anything else even had Iraq listed as an issue, mush less ask for my opion on what to do.
I get pissed at the Dems, too. three years into the war and they fianlly get it that its an electin issue.
So I’m with von. people porporting to be leadrs of the Democrats need to lead ans that means state and defend a position and not be scared of what the mean old Republicans will say about it.
‘Course i have no idea, really, what the position ought to be.
For a start we could send this chickenhawk to Iraq
Uh, yes, Alonzo, you already said that two comments up.
“Bush’s open ended commitment in Iraq also sounds like a cowardly way of passing the buck to the next guy without having to admit failure.”
Oh, it’s that, and then some.
If the next President is a Democrat, then any policy that does not result in the GOP’s current fantasy of Total Victory will be gamed by the GOP as “the Democrats lost Iraq.” Because, see, we’re winning right now. The insurgency is in its last throes, there is no civil war, and therefore, if the insurgency is still going and the civil war still being fought after January 21, 2009, it’ll be the fault of the “failed Democratic Administration.”
If the next President is a Republican (which may all the gods forbid) then any policy at all – including pulling out altogether on January 21, 2009 – will not only be perfectly hunky dory, but will be an “act of courage to save American lives,” or something along those lines.
I also sent them a hundred bucks because they have finally (finalyy!) realized that Iraq is an isue.
You have correctly identified the key to restoring America’s greatness. Low expectations!
I hate to say this, but isn’t this post simply ‘The party of No’ in a slightly more serious suit?
“Your war, you go fight it!”
Or we could stop writing like we were nine years-old.
Or we could stop writing like we were nine years-old.
We could, but what would be the point?
The arguments against this war have been made by far more articulate individuals than myself, but no one listened. Arguments for getting out of Iraq are being made by far more articulate individuals than myself, but no one listens.
So all that is left to do is to give them their war. A Republican President with a Republican Senate, a Republican House of Representative and the full support of the Republican Party gave us this war. Let’s make sure that they get stuck holding the tar baby.
Iraq is Bush’s war. Iraq is the Republican’s war.
Uh, yes, Alonzo, you already said that two comments up.
Just wanted to make sure you had a good look at the base of the Republican Party.
So let me get this straight. The Bush administration, which is in charge of the war, has no plan; the Republicans, who support Bush and control Congress, also have no plan; the Democrats, who control precisely zero branches of government, have no official plan – and they’re the target of ire in this post?
Iron Lungfish,
Exactly. Once again, members of the self-identified “Party of Personal Responsibility”, instead of pointing the figure of blame at the members of their party who actually are in total control of, and therefore responsible for the actions of, our government, choose to deflect blame by demanding that people with no power bail them out of the holes they have dug.
Actually IL and DTM, although I agree with the frustration you express, I also believe that in some sense it behooves some Democrats to present plans.
That being said, as I mentioned early in this thread, several Dems have. You go from immediate withdrawal (Kucinich) to phased redeployment but keeping a presence in the area (Murtha) to specific benchmarks and timetable (Kerry) to kiss Bush’s a** (Lieberman)>
There is no specific Democratic proposal, not should there be. See, Democrats actually believe in some degree of individualism and independent thinking, something the Republican Party at times seems to view as heretical and deserving of the boil in oil tretament.
“Actually IL and DTM, although I agree with the frustration you express, I also believe that in some sense it behooves some Democrats to present plans.”
Although more amusing than insightful, I was entertained by Bruce Reed’s paen to the virtues of no ideas, and the Republicans’ new eagerness to explain that they have no ideas, too!
Gary, it was entertaining. I specially enjoyed the line where Blount states that the Republicans have their record to run on, and yet it is basically a record they are running from.
BTW, all this thread is really pointing out is the lack of a competent media to actually report in any sort of an accurate manner what is actually out there.
That’s “Blunt”, John. Don’t go mixing up Roy Blunt with Roy Blount, even if they are pronounced the same.
My apologies, and thanks for the correction.
Actually I think my mind was thinking of a friend who goes by Blount but pronounces it Blunt.
“I don’t think the opposition party gets to have a foreign policy. You can propose a competing bill in Congress, after all, but you can’t simultaneously conduct your own negotiations with Iran and see who does better.”
No, but they get to say what they think a good foreign policy would look like. Think Churchill in the Chamberlain years. He repeatedly and forcefully said that appeasement wouldn’t work, that military buildup should occur in response to the German threat and that Hitler was such a clear danger that they should prepare for war.
For a modern hypotheticl, Democrats could say something like “Iran is going to get nuclear weapons and nothing we want to do will stop them. We should act from there.” Or they could say something like “Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons because we can’t trust them at this time. We should take whatever non-military action is needed to stop them.” Or they could say something like “Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons because we can’t trust them at this time. We should take whatever action is needed to stop them.” Or they could say something like “Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons because we can’t trust them at this time, but anything we do about it is likely to be more dangerous in the short run than the long run concern about Iranian crazies nuking Israel–we should treat it like North Korea and effectively just give them time to gain nuclear weapons and hope that also gives them time to fall apart”. All of these are examples of what they think foreign policy ought to be.
My view of Congressional Democrats is that most of them actually believe the last one, but they are afraid it plays too much into the “foreign policy wimp” characterization that Democrats have to be willing to admit it.
Alonzo, if you’re Don Q returning under a different name as I suspect: play nice; you don’t get any warnings.
No, but they get to say what they think a good foreign policy would look like. Think Churchill in the Chamberlain years.
Churchill was speaking as a member of an opposition party within a parliamentary system, wherein any number of factors could throw him into control of his country’s foreign policy relatively quickly. The nearest possible time a Democrat may control the armed forces is in January of 2009. In the meantime, any Democratic plans floated are more than welcome, but exist more for political reasons than for policymaking ones. Since Democrats have no control of foreign policy and no chance of doing so in the immediate future, it’s not incumbent upon them to solve the mess that George Bush and the GOP has made in Iraq. It is incumbent upon the White House and the GOP-dominated Congress to come up with a solution, since, as much as Republicans pretend otherwise, they’re the party in power.
It’s also not incumbent on Democrats to come up with a solution for a problem that hasn’t happened yet. The Republicans should fix Iraq first. Then possibly someone will listen to them on Iran.
“Churchill was speaking as a member of an opposition party within a parliamentary system, wherein any number of factors could throw him into control of his country’s foreign policy relatively quickly.
…
Since Democrats have no control of foreign policy and no chance of doing so in the immediate future, it’s not incumbent upon them to solve the mess that George Bush and the GOP has made in Iraq.”
How close to the election do they have to wait before they are allowed to suggest what their policy would look like? Just because something is not ‘incumbent’ on them does that mean that they should abstain from making useful suggestions?
But for the record, when Churchill started speaking up no one thought he was likely to come to power any time relatively quickly.
No, but they get to say what they think a good foreign policy would look like. Think Churchill in the Chamberlain years. He repeatedly and forcefully said that appeasement wouldn’t work, that military buildup should occur in response to the German threat and that Hitler was such a clear danger that they should prepare for war.
Yes, but Churchill’s ascension was not simply because his plans were better, but because of the German blitzkreig as well as the two other parties saying that they would not join an all party government under Chamberlain, but would under someone else. In fact, the appointment of Churchill was a bit of a surprise, as it was thought that Viscount Halifax would be appointed, but it was Chamberlain who recommended Churchill (and quite possibly forced) George VI to appoint Churchill.
Churchill also travelled to France in Spring of 38 and was received with full honors, but the cabinet (as well as his own party) made it clear that Churchill’s opinions were that of a private citizen. Furthermore, because this was a policy between national entites, foreign policy itself was a much more clear-cut arrangement. Who should the Dems meet with so as to clearly state their foreign policy goals. Khameni? Sistani? Sadr? A focus group of Baathists and Sunni insurgents? The situation is not clear cut enough to have a clear foreign policy, so arguing that the Dems need to imitate Churchill in some way is off the mark.
In the example of Iran, surely one can see that Dems tying themselves down to a statement about precisely what “should be” for Iranian nuclear weapons would be an invitation to either be co-opted by the Republican administration or be labeled as appeasers when the situation (I am presuming that Democrats are not having meetings with Iranian officials) requires a lot more information to make the kind of statements that Sebastian feels the Dems should be making.
I also think that I notice a dearth of ‘if the Dems would only do this, I would support them’ advice. Perhaps some of that is because there is no presidential election, but I don’t think that has stopped people on the right from offering such advice before. I think this suggests that there are no plausible foreign policy options for the Dems because of Republican incompetence has taken any options off the table.
Off Topic, there’s a new thread at HoCB designed specifically to lure Slarti over there.
“The Republicans should fix Iraq first. Then possibly someone will listen to them on Iran.”
It is a common foreign policy misconception that things have to be (or even can be) dealt with one at a time. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan didn’t wait for resolution of problems between Cuba and the US. The fall of the wall (and opportunities provided by that) didn’t wait for the Chinese and the West to resolve the issues raised by Tiananmen Square. Saddam didn’t wait to invade Kuwait until we were done figuring out how the collapse of the USSR changed things. North Korea continued building nuclear weapons while Clinton engaged in the Balkans. Developments in Iran will continue without waiting for resolution in Iraq.
“In the example of Iran, surely one can see that Dems tying themselves down to a statement about precisely what “should be” for Iranian nuclear weapons would be an invitation to either be co-opted by the Republican administration or be labeled as appeasers when the situation”
I’ve never seen it expressed so clearly that it is better to let bad foreign policy occur rather than suggest good and let it be acted on by the other party. I would have thought that a good opposition party would be happy to see its proposals adopted. They can then not only say that they wouldn’t have caused the problem, but that they were instrumental in creating the solution to the problem they wouldn’t of caused. That also has the purely incidental side effect of being actually good for the country–if you think that is important.
How will the US population know if your foreign policy would be good if you can’t tell anyone what it is?
Sorry, I don’t think the sarcastic “if you think it is important” comes out with quite the right tone in text.
john miller,
“Actually IL and DTM, although I agree with the frustration you express, I also believe that in some sense it behooves some Democrats to present plans.”
In what sense is that? The sense that the Bush Administration will appropriate whatever is useful to them, add poison pills and then bash Democrats as terrorist appeasers for not accepting their poison pills, as in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security? The sense that Congress will strip away any nuance and present a charactiture of the plan for public ridicule as they did to John Murtha’s plans? The sense that they will distort outright the contents of the plan, as they did to Kerry’s plans in 2004, to the extent that some posters here still believe he was in favor of cutting and running?
If we were talking about opponents who actually acted like grown-ups who would examine and debate proposals on their merits, you would have a point. When dealing with the current Administration and Congressional leadership, far less so.
DTM: I agree with you on much of that, but a lot of what happened in 2004 would not have happened with a responsible press corps. Although it is not there yet, the press is starting to realize that they have been taken in by this administration and are starting to act more like young adults rather than teenagers experiencing their first epsiode of puppy love.
Anyway, to answer your question, it’s almost a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation, and I would rather be damned for doing something. At least I would have something to counter the attacks with.
And again, I am talking about individual Dems, not a party statement.
john miller,
You place a lot more faith in the press than I do after the last 15 years. The press’s failings did not start when George Bush was elected, as the time and effort they spent abetting Republican attempts to delegitimize Clinton (from pushing Whitewater and Vince Foster after no shortage of independent panels concluded nothing was there to loudly suggesting Clinton was trying to “wag the dog” whenever he took action in Kosovo or against bin Laden to suggesting impeachment or resignation the very day the Lewinsky scandal broke) shows.
I think it will take far more than this Administration’s failings for the press to grow up and once again actually do investigations and not just slouch into “he said, she said” journalism.
I classify myself as an optimistic pessimist, which basically means I am in general pessimistic about many things, such as the press actually being independent, but optimistic about the possibility of them actually changing.
I don’t negate what you are saying. And it is more likely they will just go after Bush, but leave the Republicans as a whole alone, and continue to misquote, underquote or completely ignore the Dems.
“In fact, the appointment of Churchill was a bit of a surprise, as it was thought that Viscount Halifax would be appointed, but it was Chamberlain who recommended Churchill (and quite possibly forced) George VI to appoint Churchill.”
While we’re recapitulating, it’s probably worth mentioning that Churchill had already returned from “the wilderness” of his political exile to Chamberlain’s Cabinet, political power, and the First Lordship of the Admiralty (control of the Navy, in other words, the position he had held for most of WWI), significantly before he was further elevated to the Prime Ministership. And when he did become PM, he formed a unity government, not a Conservative government. All of which makes analogizing to our present situation fairly far afield, although if Sebastian or anyone wants to observe that it’s possible for individual Democrats to articulate policies, or even for Democrats to form some sort of limited agreement on suggested policy, obviously that’s true; that it’s somehow required seems difficult to support, and for Republicans or non-Democrats to busily advise Democrats that they’re somehow obligated to put forth plans they can’t put into effect seems, well, not necessarily something to be taken as helpful advice, even if it’s sincerely meant that way, which it doubtless is in at least a few cases; it might be sincere, but whether it’s correct or actually helpful to the Democrats if they took it, just now, is quite debatable.
“Who should the Dems meet with so as to clearly state their foreign policy goals. Khameni? Sistani? Sadr? A focus group of Baathists and Sunni insurgents?”
And, not incidentally, that would likely also violate the Logan Act, not to mention that Republican leaders would immediately label all Democrats engaged in any meetings with “the enemy” as obvious traitors, which, as we know, all Democrats obviously are.
“While we’re recapitulating, it’s probably worth mentioning that Churchill had already returned from “the wilderness” of his political exile to Chamberlain’s Cabinet, political power, and the First Lordship of the Admiralty (control of the Navy, in other words, the position he had held for most of WWI), significantly before he was further elevated to the Prime Ministership.”
And he began the critique of Chamberlain’s appeasement and other policies toward Germany rather before that–which is why he was elevated in the first place, no?
“Who should the Dems meet with so as to clearly state their foreign policy goals. Khameni? Sistani? Sadr? A focus group of Baathists and Sunni insurgents?”
If they really wanted to I would suggest they start with the American people. But I see that the trend here is to suggest that the Democrats (and presumabely country) would be better if they did not so there we are.
Sorry, in the middle of all this I must have missed the point where Sebastian and Von laid out their own plans for Iraq. I’m for a gradual withdrawal myself. What’s your patented Plan For Victory, gents?
It involves 150,000 more troops and probably being there 15 years minimum.
I would have thought that a good opposition party would be happy to see its proposals adopted.
Rather like the stupid bully who gets the smart kid to do his homework for him, eh? Why, the bully’s happy he won’t fail and the smart kid can take pleasure in a job well done.
It involves 150,000 more troops and probably being there 15 years minimum.
Any idea where these troops are coming from? Robots? Golems? Those magic brooms that attacked Mickey in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”? Because the word “draft” has yet to appear in this proposal.
“But I see that the trend here is to suggest that the Democrats (and presumabely country) would be better if they did not so there we are.”
I don’t know if they are or are not; I don’t think either possible answer is obvious or axiomatic. What would you favor their favoring, though?
“It involves 150,000 more troops and probably being there 15 years minimum.”
Ah. Care to be more specific? Is this level of specificity a “plan”? If Democrats agree that they’re for this, does that mean you’ll vote for them, and write posts advising everyone to? And do I take it that you’re for expanding the Army by another 12-14 divisions, or so, more than doubling its size? Or what?
Sebastian,
I appreciate your willingness to put forward a concrete plan, but we are entering “pony” territory, with your suggestion are we not? What happens to the first Dem to suggest doubling troop deployments? (Heck, what would happen if Hagel or St. McCain did so?)
As for this It is a common foreign policy misconception that things have to be (or even can be) dealt with one at a time.
Of course, I agree. However, the point is that our present commitments in Iraq go a ways towards hamstringing our efforts relative to Iran. There is no iron inside the velvet glove to speak of.
I appreciate your willingness to put forward a concrete plan, but we are entering “pony” territory, with your suggestion are we not? What happens to the first Dem to suggest doubling troop deployments? (Heck, what would happen if Hagel or St. McCain did so?)
Forget how politically feasible it is to suggest the “more troops” plan. It’s simply not doable. There are no more troops.
Yglesias’s and Rosenfeld’s Prospect piece on this a few months ago made this point:
The flaw in the popular “more troops” argument is strikingly easy to locate. The 20-to-1,000 ratio implies the presence of about 500,000 soldiers in Iraq. That’s far more than it would have been possible for the United States to deploy. Sustaining a given number of troops in a combat situation requires twice that number to be dedicated to the mission, so that soldiers can rotate in and out of theater. As there are only 1 million soldiers in the entire Army, a 500,000-troop deployment would imply that literally everyone — from the National Guard units currently assisting with disaster relief on the Gulf Coast to those serving in Afghanistan, Korea, and Europe to the bureaucrats doing staff work in the Pentagon and elsewhere — would be dedicated to the mission. This is plainly impossible. Indeed, as of this writing the Army has zero uncommitted active combat brigades, and there are serious questions as to how long the current deployment is sustainable. The Army is already facing persistent shortfalls in recruitment, and former General Barry McCaffrey and others have expressed the view that if current trends continue, the Guard and Reserve forces will “melt down” over the next three years.
Yglesias and Rosenfeld were talking about the prospect of a (more theoretically successful, less practically possible) 500,000-person force, but there’s no evidence that we could actually maintain a 300,000-person occupation, either. The army is strained to the breaking point as it is; where in the world would we get an extra 150,000 troops?
IL,
Hence the pony.
“Ah. Care to be more specific? Is this level of specificity a “plan”? If Democrats agree that they’re for this, does that mean you’ll vote for them, and write posts advising everyone to? And do I take it that you’re for expanding the Army by another 12-14 divisions, or so, more than doubling its size? Or what?”
I absolutely am for returning troop levels to their pre-peace dividend levels. If there was a Democrat proposing that, of course I would support them. And vote for them too if possible, as if either of my Senators could understand foreign policy enough to do so.
Is this level of specificity a plan? No, it is the kernel of a plan. I would expect much more of myself if I were Senator getting paid full time to think about US policies. Much more than 2,319 Americans have died, therefore we should abandon Iraq and try to rule things from offshore.
Iron Lungfish, we would hire them. We sustained a much larger volunteer army in the past, and we could do so again. It would involve two medium-level changes. First, authorize the hire of more troops. Second, increase the pay to attract new hires and increase retention. And before you ask: Yes I would be willing to raise taxes if necessary to do so. And cut certain military programs not necessary to this style of warfare–though killing off farm subsidies would be an even better, if less likely, way to pay for increased troop levels. These troops do not currently exist, but only because they haven’y been authorized–a key stupid mistake (by Bush)that should have rectified even before the war began.
Sebastian’s plan reminds me of the man whose doctor told him the best thing to do was to stop smoking, cut way down on the fat in his diet, and begin exercising regularly.
“Well, Doc, I don’t really deserve the best. What’s second best?”
The thing is, Sebastian, hiring and training that many more troops would take quite a while. By the time we have them up and ready, Iraq could already be well into a full-scale civil war.
I mean: I want this to work as much as anyone. I think the consequences of failing are really, really bad. But that unfortunately doesn’t mean we can’t fail, or that after a certain amount of disastrous mismanagement, we might just be fresh out of good options.
(I sometimes suspect that part of the reason we are failing was precisely that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al didn’t really believe that failure was possible. After all, we have the best military in the world; how can we fail? (Answer: easily. Just be dumb enough. It’s obvious that we’d fail if, for instance, we sent the best military into combat unarmed, and ordered them to lie down and yell ‘kill us! kill us!’ The point of considering that stupid example is just: the best army will not win if you don’t use it intelligently.)
If you don’t think you can fail, then you might think that it would be fine to e.g. staff the CPA with politically connected idiots, have no plan for reconstruction, etc., etc. And you’d be a lot more likely to actually fail.)
I’m now torn between my earlier ‘withdraw to a number of secure locations, and be prepared to prevent an all-out, battalions-ranged-against-one-another civil war’ option, and setting a timetable and withdrawing altogether. But that’s not because I am the least bit happy about the consequences; I just think that we have burned through the good options, and the mediocre ones, and even the pretty bad but not outright disastrous ones.
When things go bad enough, there is no good answer to the question ‘what would you do?’ I think we reached that point some time ago. And I see no reason to think that it will turn around under Bush.
“The thing is, Sebastian, hiring and training that many more troops would take quite a while. By the time we have them up and ready, Iraq could already be well into a full-scale civil war.”
Well sure. That is why a perfectly valid criticism of the Bush administration (and one that I have been making for three years now) is that they haven’t done so. But that training is always going to take a long time–no matter when we start. The sooner we start the better.
Republicans and especially Republican Congressmen and members of the Administration should absolutely be criticized on those grounds.
But like so many issues, the Democrats on average are positively worse. There is certainly no general consensus among Democrats that we should expand the military. Kerry’s “we should expand the military but never send any more people to Iraq” idea was profoundly strange.
The “let’s bring back the draft so we can withdraw from Iraq right now” policies being circulated from time to time are fairly transparent.
So where does that leave me? With a party that probably won’t do the right thing by authorizing many more troops and the party that definetly won’t.
we would hire them. We sustained a much larger volunteer army in the past, and we could do so again.
Yes we did – during peacetime. You seem to think that the only thing keeping tens of thousands of able-bodied young Americans from jumping to their feet and signing up with the U.S. Army is the salary. You’re aware that they’re aware that there’s a war on, right? And this has not exactly been an incentive for folks to sign up; recruiting has been decimated by the war precisely because kids approached by recruiters know they’re effectively signing up for Iraq, and there’s precious little enthusiasm for that right now.
If you’re going to launch a new program for the express purpose of recruiting troops for this war, you’re not just looking for the guy who wants free tuition but thinks the Army’s kind of stingy with its benefits. You’re looking for people who already want to fight in Iraq. And there are not 150,000 of those people in this country. The most recruitable prospects already joined up long 70% of the country became convinced Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Lots more money won’t trick them into signing up; stirring, patriotic speeches won’t trick them into signing up. There’s only so much you can do to get people to throw away their lives for a fool’s errand.
Of course, all this discussion of victory plans is academic; Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, whether the president cares to admit it or not. Two years ago most anyone would’ve agreed this would be proof of failure; now that it’s actually here, I can’t see what could convince the hawks this war’s already been lost.
That sentence in the middle should read “The most recruitable prospects already joined up long before 70% of the country became convinced Iraq is in the midst of a civil war.”
I hope SOME party is the party of definitely won’t.
We don’t need more troops. We need more brains in use. We don’t need fighter bombers that can double as x wing fighters – we need A10s. We don’t need more nuclear carriers, we need more better personnel carriers, and so on.
Listen, the only thing a bigger army would do is lead leaders normally less foolish the Bush to use it. And using our Army has proved itself to be a chancy thing.
Iraq was not an issue. The Army would be FINE had we not invaded Iraq.
But we did, you say, and now we have other issues we need to address. Well, we don’t have other issues the Army could help us address, that’s for DAMN sure.
You get no more guns, Sebastian. Not you, not Von, not CB, not OCSteve. All you guys wanna do is go shoot somebody with ’em.
Personally, if it is true that our current quagmire, Iraq, hamstrings our plans for a future quagmire in Iran, I am glad.
Troops are NOT the answer. Nor is airpower. Diplomacy and money will go further than guns and bombs.
And if the day comes that we literally have no choice, then we will make that last choice, between action and no action, knowing that we exhausted all other possibilities.
This is not WWII and OBL is not Hitler. There are other solutions to the problem of relgious (and non-religious) extremism. Solutions that $250 billion and counting would have gone a LONG way to implement.
Jake
I’d note that my impression is that the larger stick of more troops is obtainable by better cooperation with the rest of the international community. That this limits the use of the stick should be considered a feature rather than a bug.
I’d also wonder about the possibility of raising more troops given stories like this
Besides bringing antibiotics and painkillers, military personnel nationwide are heading back to Iraq with a cache of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications.
The psychotropic drugs are a bow to a little-discussed truth fraught with implications: Mentally ill service members are being returned to combat.
Sebastian, even if we ignore the fact that you acknowledge your plan is unworkable, impossible and nonviable, I’m not at all sure we could hire 150,000 soldiers for a 15-year deployment in Iraq.
For one thing, would those be the same 150,000 for all 15 years?
If so, where are you going to find 150,000 people who are able and willing to be on active combat duty for 15 years? Are you advocating recruiting mercenaries? Are you advocating recruiting mercenaries from countries besides the US?
What rate of pay would they get, and what benefits? You say you’re willing to raise taxes to pay for it all; are you also willing to raise taxes to pay for things like lifelong health benefits (physical and mental), survivor benefits, pension, housing, etc.? Because 15 years is essentially a career. The skills needed to survive 15 years of active combat duty don’t translate very well to the civilian job market – esp. if the soldier is wounded badly enough that s/he can’t find a good job in the civilian sector.
If you’re not suggesting an entire 15-year hitch, how long would the hitch last? Let’s say each soldier signs up for 6 years (the current length of service, I think). Your plan would then call for hiring 375,000 soldiers. What kind of budget are we talking about now? For basic pay, combat pay, and the whole array of benefits mentioned above? How much are you willing to raise taxes, and how much of the non-military budget are you willing to see eliminated altogether, to pay for it all?
Are you advocating creating a permanent, professional, at-least-quasi-mercenary military corp? What do we do with them when there aren’t any major wars to fight?
Or are you predicting that, in the 21st Century, we’ll constantly be at war with somebody? What kind of country are you predicting we’ll be, if we’re always at war with somebody? Esp. if that constant state of war also means the President will continue to have those extra-legal (I’m being charitable here) powers the Bush Administration claims for Bush? Are you advocating that as well?
Wasn’t India considering sending troops, before deciding against it because the US wouldn’t reliquish any command control?
I don’t know what bribes, promises, or grovelling it would take for other countries to send troops. Maybe Bush has already made proffers that were rebuffed (maybe the recent recognition of India as a nuclear power was part of some deal in that direction); maybe he’s still gambling that he doesn’t have to offer much.
Obviously, most countries aren’t going to leap at the opportunity. Maybe they’re also waiting for the US to give up and withdraw in the face of a civil war, whereupon an international coalition can move in under the UN aegis; maybe they’re waiting for the results of the 2006 US elections or for Bush to be impeached or who knows what.
But if matters go as bad as they very possibly will, a disintegrating Iraq would be an invitation to every oil-rich country in the neighborhood to do stupid and destructive things, which begins to concern many states’ national interests.
Anyway, what I’m suggesting is that Sebastian’s extra troops needn’t necessarily come from the US, if we can improve our diplomacy.
Aaaand, one of the major obstacles to that is that widespread whitehot outrage that our treatment of detainees has sparked among most of our potential allies’ populations. I don’t exactly know what would diffuse that outrage to make joining with the US in such a perilous venture at this late date less politically devastating. Firing Rumsfeld seems too little.
“You’re aware that they’re aware that there’s a war on, right? And this has not exactly been an incentive for folks to sign up; recruiting has been decimated by the war precisely because kids approached by recruiters know they’re effectively signing up for Iraq, and there’s precious little enthusiasm for that right now.”
Yes I am, and I think you severely underestimate the recruiting potential of $10,000 a year more per person. Much less $15,000 or $20,000. (And if we need to raise taxes by about $10.74 to pay for that I’m all for it). And considering the very low casualty rate of US forces in Iraq (I believe we are at 2319 killed and 17004 reported wounded over 3 years. I can’t find up the date troop levels, but for most of the 3 year period we were over 150,000 and I think we might be just under 100,000 right now. For argument purposes I’m going to use 100,000 but using a higher number would have made the argument even better. On a per year basis that makes a (very rough) chance of getting killed or injured (I’m presuming that killed is not included in injured, but if I’m wrong that makes the number better for my argument) of about 6% and a chance of getting killed at about 0.8%. There are quite a few people who would take that 0.8% risk. (I think lots of people, especially young people discount to zero any risk at or below 1%. Also your talk of “the most recruitable prospects already joined up” almost certainly discounts those who come of age to join in the next year. That number is well in the millions. Just 1% of them would put us in the 50,000 range assuming that no other person joined.
So where does that leave me? With a party that probably won’t do the right thing by authorizing many more troops and the party that definetly won’t.
“probably won’t” is a serious overbid, Sebastian. Neither party is going to do what you want.
You say there is “no general consensus among Democrats that we should expand the military.” Is there such a consensus among Republicans? And of those who may claim to favor it in the abstract, how many are willing to pay the very substantial costs? Without seriousness about that the rest is empty rhetoric.
“I’d note that my impression is that the larger stick of more troops is obtainable by better cooperation with the rest of the international community.”
I think you are almost certainly wrong. Example 1: last three years of the Sudan. Even now talk of NATO troops seem to be just talk.
“For one thing, would those be the same 150,000 for all 15 years?”
Almost certainly not. Recruitment goes on over years.
“How much are you willing to raise taxes, and how much of the non-military budget are you willing to see eliminated altogether, to pay for it all?
Are you advocating creating a permanent, professional, at-least-quasi-mercenary military corp? What do we do with them when there aren’t any major wars to fight?”
How much am I willing to pay in taxes for this kind of thing? A lot. How much of the non-military budget am I willing to forgo? Remember you are talking to a real small government conservative here. 🙂
Am I advocating a semi-permanent professional military corp. Yes. I’m saying we should go back to the staffing levels of the 1980s. That wasn’t so awful. We don’t need as many expensive fighter planes for the upcoming wars either which should allay some fears of the “military industrial complex”. This isn’t about industrial, this is about people.
Sebastian, the argument can be made that more troops will increase not only absolute casualties, but the casualty rate as well. More opportunities to shoot Americans = more Americans shot. Or bombed. Not to mention that we seem to be shooting quite a number of civilians. How many civilians must we shoot before it simply becomes too many?
Your 15 years is probably right. In fact, it may be short by 10 years or so – a generation may need to pass before a democracy can be imposed.
But if the Iraqi’s choose it for themselves, it could happen much more quickly.
We’ve got to get out of the way. The Iraqis have to make this happen. WE CAN’T DO IT FOR THEM.
Jake
Sebastian, I’m not sure if your latest post was in answer to my question about whether those 150,000 extra soldiers would be signing up for the whole 15-year presence you advocated, but I’ll assume your projection of “50,000 per year” – presumably, every year? – is in fact a reply. Which means it would take 3 years to get to your 150,000 target.
Oh, but you’ve also reduced your preferred troop total to 100,000. Which would be, what, a total of 200,000 troops in Iraq at all times for the next 15 years, starting 3 years from now? Is that an accurate summary of your Plan for Iraq?
Where did you get that “$10.74” in increased taxes per person to pay for the extra 50,000 per year? What does that pay for, the singing bonus? the entire salary? the health, housing, education, and other benefits? Does “$10.74” pay for all that?
You suggest a constant 200,000 troop strength in Iraq for the next 15 years. What do you suggest doing if military action is needed elsewhere in the world during the next 15 years?
“You say there is “no general consensus among Democrats that we should expand the military.” Is there such a consensus among Republicans?”
No there isn’t a consensus among the legislators of either party. But the Democrats are a definite ‘no’. Republicans are at least open to the concept.
“Neither party is going to do what you want.”
Almost certainly right. But you don’t get to ‘there’ from ‘here’ without advocating what you think is right. Which, by the way, speaks precisely to my criticism of Democrats and foreign policy. If the Democratic Party really wants to follow a Murth-style policy they should back it, and repeatedly bring it to vote. They should talk about it. They should publically push it. Democrats have a problem being taken seriously on foreign policy. That isn’t going to change by pretending that foreign policy shouldn’t be talked about until after you win. You won’t be running against Bush in 2008. Hell, if things go poorly, you could have both sides running against Bush.
“Which means it would take 3 years to get to your 150,000 target.”
You assume that only people coming of age will be available. That is almost certainly wrong.
“Oh, but you’ve also reduced your preferred troop total to 100,000. Which would be, what, a total of 200,000 troops in Iraq at all times for the next 15 years, starting 3 years from now?”
No, as soon as possible. We need to intensify things with more troops NOW and SOON so that things can be better LATER. Which is why I am critical of the fact that we hadn’t authorized more troops earlier. And why I certainly don’t think waiting until a new president comes around before beginning (almost 3 years from now)to raise troop levels is a good idea.
“You suggest a constant 200,000 troop strength in Iraq for the next 15 years. What do you suggest doing if military action is needed elsewhere in the world during the next 15 years?”
See above. I seriously doubt we will need 200,000 troops for the full 15 years. And the reason you need so many more troops is so you can do rotations and/or deal with other issues. I forsee a commitment of at least 15 years–that isn’t the same as a commitment of 200,000 for 15 years. See for example Germany (we could clearly bring troop levels down now if we wanted to). See also South Korea–especially since the South Korean people are ambivalent enough about our presence to spark near constant protests.
I think you severely underestimate the recruiting potential of $10,000 a year more per person. Much less $15,000 or $20,000. (And if we need to raise taxes by about $10.74 to pay for that I’m all for it).
This, on the other hand, is a serious underbid. You don’t just pay soldiers. You recruit them, train them, equip them, feed them, give the wounded medical care, provide various veterans benefits, etc. And these are just the out-of-pocket costs associated with adding 150,000 soldiers.
Yes I am, and I think you severely underestimate the recruiting potential of $10,000 a year more per person.
I think you severely underestimate how much this war has crippled the military’s recruiting goals. The parents and students who have been trying to drive off military recruiters over the last year really don’t care about the thousands of troops who haven’t been killed, injured, or maimed; they’re only worried about the ones who have been. And the 17,000 that the DOD includes as injured doesn’t include psychological damage; it certainly doesn’t include those who’ve lost their jobs or who’ve seen their marriages fall apart.
And do you honestly think the promise of extra pay is going to bring in that many more recruits – and keep bringing them in, for an extra decade and a half, no less! – after this administration has spent the last five years cutting veteran’s benefits, survivor’s benefits and hazard pay, after repeated stop loss orders have kept troops in the field long after they were supposed to go home, after recruiters have been caught lying to students? People generally aren’t willing to depend on known liars and con men for their paychecks, any more than they’re willing to sign up for a war without end.
Sebastian: the reason I brought up the length of time is just that I don’t think that starting to recruit now is a solution to the problems we face now. If we face the same problems in 2-3 years, it might be. But that leaves open, and unanswered, the question: given the army as it exists, what should we do now?
It’s not at all clear to me that “staying the course” with this army, and ramping up for a larger one to be available in a few years, is the best solution. Nor do I think that we could significantly raise our troop levels (during those 2-3 years before the new troops are ready) for more than a short period of time without doing even more damage to the army.
It involves 150,000 more troops and probably being there 15 years minimum.
This war is only costing us $5.9 billion a month according to the WSJ, where do you expect to get the money to continue this foolishness for another 15 years? Where do you expect to find a 150,000 more troops with out starting a draft?
Most sane people will not go anywhere near the military at the present time, who wants to die, be wounded, physically or emotionaly be crippled for life?
Playing Risk is fun, but it should not be confused with real life. So when will you be joining the Army?
I have a seven year old boy, I have no intention of sending him to Iraq a decade from now.
As far as Iran goes, they have not violated the NPT (I am not sure the same can be said about us), so why do you want to start a war with them? Have we not done enough damage to the poor people of Iran by overthrowing Mossadeq and giving the SAVAK, not to mention backing Saddam in the eighties during the Iraq-Iran War.
“I have a seven year old boy, I have no intention of sending him to Iraq a decade from now.”
Do you think more than 1% of children do other than the wishes of their parents at age 18?
“Playing Risk is fun, but it should not be confused with real life. So when will you be joining the Army?”
Ah, you sound like just the kind of parent likely to have a rebellious son who joins the Army. I’ll be happy to engage you later if you want to talk.
Alonzo, all of your links is belong to the bit bucket, apparently. Something went wrong, somewhere.
“You assume that only people coming of age will be available. That is almost certainly wrong.”
Who else did you have in mind? People with jobs and families to support?
Or is your idea a “two-fer,” where the people who can’t find good jobs get to sign up to go to Iraq for 3-6 years, thus solving the recruitment problem and the Bush Economy problem?
“We need to intensify things with more troops NOW and SOON so that things can be better LATER. Which is why I am critical of the fact that we hadn’t authorized more troops earlier. And why I certainly don’t think waiting until a new president comes around before beginning (almost 3 years from now)to raise troop levels is a good idea.”
Who is in power now that could implement your plan? Have you written to the President, to your Representatives and Senators, suggesting the plan? Why not contact the RNC and suggest they do a campaign ad based on your plan?
“I seriously doubt we will need 200,000 troops for the full 15 years.”
Then please clarify what you meant when you said:“It involves 150,000 more troops and probably being there 15 years minimum.”
How long will we need 150,000 more troops there? What change in Iraq do you foresee happening to lessen the need for US troop strength? Do you support a military attack on Iran? What effect would a military attack on Iran have on Iraq, and on our forces there?
And you still haven’t said what that “$10.74” per person pays for.
“Then please clarify what you meant when you said:”It involves 150,000 more troops and probably being there 15 years minimum.””
It involves 150,000 more troops as soon as we can get them, and probably being there with an undefined number of troops for 15 years minimum based on further need. (See for example Japan, South Korea, Germany).
$10.74 is the cost of the “raise” for new recruits. If you wish to guess that the total costs are ten times that of the raise per year (which would surprise me greatly) I would still be happy to pay $107.40 per person in new taxes per year. I would also be willing to cut quite a bit in other spending even without a war on as a matter of personal political philosophy. Since the initial question “How much are you willing to raise taxes, and how much of the non-military budget are you willing to see eliminated altogether, to pay for it all?” is in the form suggesting that my commitment to raising taxes for the war is not enough, I’m going to consider it settled that I am and move on unless there are further objections.
Ah, you sound like just the kind of parent likely to have a rebellious son who joins the Army.
Ah, you sound like just the kind of guy who can’t wait to send other people’s kids to wars in which you aren’t willing to fight in.
SH wrote: Republicans are at least open to the concept [of expanding the military].
hogwash. if that statement were true, then the army would in fact be growing.
to be more specific, there are no political constraints whatsoever right now on the Republican party authorizing an annual end-strength of the Army of 1 million soldiers. Deficits, as Cheney said, don’t matter, the Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, and the Democratic party wouldn’t stand in the way.
the problem, SH, is that you refuse to recognize that your party will never fight this war in the way you believe it needs to be fought. [it appears that there is disagreement by the professionals with SH’s idea that money alone will induce enough quality soldiers to join up to form a 1MM man army.) So you can either suck it up and support your president and your party, or join the loyal opposition.
given the lack of political will to double the size of the army, it seems to me that loyal republicans are faced with a hard question. What leads to the worse long-term outcome: continuing with the force we have and praying [really hard!] for a non-disasterous outcome; or declare victory and withdraw to Kuwait?
“the problem, SH, is that you refuse to recognize that your party will never fight this war in the way you believe it needs to be fought. [it appears that there is disagreement by the professionals with SH’s idea that money alone will induce enough quality soldiers to join up to form a 1MM man army.) So you can either suck it up and support your president and your party, or join the loyal opposition.”
Most of the disagreement is with respect to the reserves. It is perfectly obvious why joining the reserves right now doesn’t make sense…. you know you are going if you join so it isn’t the maybe/maybe not deal of the 1980s. Which is precisely why we need a larger main force–so we aren’t relying on the reserves for forseeable needs. The reserves should be for unforseen immediate needs.
As for “So you can either suck it up and support your president and your party, or join the loyal opposition.” what does joining the loyal opposition get me? Democrats won’t tell me what their foreign policy will look like. Advice from upthread is that the ought not tell me. So why would I choose them?
I’m behind here because there have been a bunch of comments while I’ve been (again) involuntarily unconscious for the last few hours, but what seems weird to me here is that Republicans show no one iota more sign of being for adding 150,000 more troops to the Army than Democrats do, or even of desiring to add 50,000 troops, and they’re in power.
There’s just no sign of such a movement. The administration isn’t remotely for it. Not at all. Not a bit. Not even a teeny, tiny, bit. In fact, they want to cut the National Guard.
And there’s no movement in the Senate or House for Republicans to favor even a third of the expansion of the Army that you favor (whether it’s an objectively good idea is another question; there’s at least a fair argument for it, certainly). Not at all.
So how on earth would it be legitimate to criticize Democrats for not being for this idea?
I mean, sure, don’t give them credit for not proposing an alternative the Republicans aren’t proposing, either, obviously, but it’s certainly not more problematic of the Democrats, should one stipulate that your idea is the way to go.
” mean, sure, don’t give them credit for not proposing an alternative the Republicans aren’t proposing, either, obviously, but it’s certainly not more problematic of the Democrats, should one stipulate that your idea is the way to go.”
Who said more. It is being used as proof that I ought to vote for Democrats that the Republicans aren’t doing what I want.
I don’t think Sebastian’s choice is between the party that probably won’t do the right thing (expand the Army) and the party that definately won’t
I think his choice is between the party that will certainly lie about its decisions and thier consequences and the party that probably won’t.
Neither party will increase the size of the military.
Since the best indcator of future behavior is past behavior i think the Republicans will continue to focus o spin ad message control, focus on maintaining the illusion of winning and continue to wing it day to day with little or no real interest in the actual status of things i Iraq.
It is ironic because probably both parties would do pretty much the same thing i terms of actual actions in Iraq: incremental withdrawals, some to home, some to areas outside Iraq. The Democrats wpuld probably organize the withdrawals more copetetly and avoid torture and other faux pas. I would ot expect the Democrats to be intersted i permenent bases there and I think the Republicans are stiull in hopes of that but otherwise incrementl withdrawl is the most likely real plan from both sides.
The difference is that the Republicans will lie about it and the Democrats won’t. The Republicans wil lie because the way the war plays out here is more iportant to them than how it plays out there.
“No there isn’t a consensus among the legislators of either party. But the Democrats are a definite ‘no’. Republicans are at least open to the concept.”
They are? Where’s the evidence for that?
I do at least think that the notion of of recruiting an Army that side isn’t particularly undoable, although how problematic or not or precisely expensive it’s apt to be, I don’t know. And I do think the questions as to whether it’s wise or not, and the point that a huger fighting establishment like that will certainly make it somewhat more tempting to use it (which you favor), and whether that’s a grand idea, overall, setting Iraq aside, is a highly debatable notion that would deserve a huge public debate — you may favor it because, say, you favor then being able to also invade and occupy Syria or Iran or somesuch, but whether those would be good ideas are obviously terribly important questions and I, for one, think the notion would be, at the very least, immensely debatable, and myself I think they’d be terrible ideas, for a variety of reasons (only one is the way it would push the rest of the world, including many who might otherwise be inclined to be our allies, or at least neutralish towards us, to regard us as truly a threat, not the sort of “trustworthy” powers neo-con theory once advocated we were going to be seen as in the post-cold-war period).
Every time Don Quizote, or Alonzo, or any other idiot demands to know when someone specifically is going to join the Army, I’ll ask that person when he is going to fly to Iraq and throw himself into protecting Iraqis; obviously he can’t be for helping Iraqis if he isn’t willing to put himself on the line that way, after all. If Alonzo isn’t in Iraq, obviously he doesn’t care. (Jeebus, what a moronic fixation!)
Every time Don Quizote, or Alonzo, or any other idiot demands to know when someone specifically is going to join the Army,
Gary, I don’t think that Alonzo’s statement was as bald as that and if it is Don, I think his newest interation has been remarkably restrained. Invoking the ghost of past statements (without actually quoting them) and then suggesting that it is a ‘moronic fixation’ is close to a posting rules violation, imo.
“Invoking the ghost of past statements (without actually quoting them) and then suggesting that it is a ‘moronic fixation’ is close to a posting rules violation, imo.”
Okay. Rephrase: I think that the whole “chickenhawk”/”you must join the military if you favor using it” argument is idiotic, and at the very least can’t be reasonably made without fulfilling your own side of it if it is to be held as correct. Thus, if you hold to such a theory, and oppose a specific war, you must equally demonstrate your opposition by equally putting your own life in jeopardy, or obviously you are as hypocritical as those you accuse of hypocrisy.
Eliding to GF’s essence:
“Every time any idiot demands to know when someone specifically is going to join the Army…Jeebus, what a moronic fixation!”
I’m with Gary 100%.
I don’t completely disagree with your point, but the question of who fights is one which came up in Vietnam and one that, if Sebastian’s plan were to come about (though I don’t see how it could and pointing out what a small portion of the population it is doesn’t make it more plausible), would surface, so I think it’s fair to wonder about it. I think it is a feature of moral ethics to not propose to do something that one isn’t willing to do oneself, and if there is a large disconnect in this aspect, some hypocrisy can be assumed. However, I am unable to look into my soul and know exactly what I would do, so I certainly can’t raise it.
However, assuming that Alonzo is Don, he said that he was a Marine who had served in Lebanon during the Reagan era. The notion of Nixon going to China might apply here, especially since we have James Webb running as a Democratic candidate in VA, a recently retired general (Eaton) write a scorching editorial for the NYTimes, and Larry Wilkerson. I’m sure you are aware of these, so I forgo the links here.
I certainly admit, it’s a touchy subject, but simply ruling it out of bounds and saying it can’t be discussed, especially when it is argued that the problem is perhaps totally solvable by more boots on the ground, seems problematic. It also seems problematic from the standpoint that more troops (presumably quickly trained) would have the cultural sensitivity and the mental flexibility to have Iraq take the course that the admin has imagined it would, especially if the criticisms of Ben Griffin are at all true. Putting more men into a situation where the moral lines seem to be so poorly drawn cannot be considered an appropriate strategy.
Gary, I think your logic bus has gone driven off the cliff here – I oppose the war because I don’t want anyone in harms way, including Iraqis. Chickenhawks appear to front the war as long as it is someone else who is in harms way. It is not the opposite of the “chickenhawks must enlist” coin to say that those who oppose the war must go put their lives in jeopardy.
Jake
Rephrase: I think that the whole “chickenhawk”/”you must join the military if you favor using it” argument is idiotic, and at the very least can’t be reasonably made without fulfilling your own side of it if it is to be held as correct. Thus, if you hold to such a theory, and oppose a specific war, you must equally demonstrate your opposition by equally putting your own life in jeopardy, or obviously you are as hypocritical as those you accuse of hypocrisy.
whaaattt ????
Leadership is not asking other people to do what you are not willing to do yourself. If you are not willing to do it yourself and lead by example, what leads you to believe that others will be willing to go into the meat grinder?
Sending Jenna & not Jenna, the various Bush nephews to Iraq would do more for the war effort than all of Bush’s speeches.
It’s called leadership by example!
LJ,
Alonzo never went to Lebanon, he missed that delightful experience due to the fact that is enlistment time was up, but he did get a special invitation to stick around and visit the place due to his linguistic skills. He turned it down, four years as 0311 was plenty.
Every time Don Quizote, or Alonzo, or any other idiot demands to know when someone specifically is going to join the Army
I’m not with Gary here, fond of him as I am. Sebastian believes that many more troops and much more money over a period of many more years is absolutely vital to our success in Iraq. Yet, as vital to our national interest as Sebastian seems to think success in Iraq is, and as much as he’s willing to pay other people to fight, he isn’t willing to put his own life on the line. Now that unwillingness doesn’t mean Sebastian can’t express his opinion–and it doesn’t even mean his opinion is invalid–(it doesn’t, I hasten to add, even make Sebastian a “bad” person) but it does cast a certain light on his opinion. Sebastian believes that success in Iraq is important enough to restructure the American military–and possibly the American government–but not important enough for him to sacrifice personally, beyond, say, an extra 11.00 per annum in taxes. Make of that what you will, but to me that makes Sebastian’s opinions sound profoundly unserious.
Thanks for the correction, I seem to remember that you knew some of the Marines who died in the 83 Beirut barracks bombing?
I’ll stick up for you, Alonzo, but only as long as you close your tags. And don’t invoke the Bush twins. ;^)
Thanks for the correction, I seem to remember that you knew some of the Marines who died in the 83 Beirut barracks bombing?
One, went to boot camp with Alonzo. Must have reenlisted.
latest post from Zeyad:
“More troops” strikes me as the appearance of fixing this more than fixing this. Though God knows it’d be good to have troops available.
Khalizad seems more competent than any of his predecessors. It may be too late. It probably is too late. I don’t know how we know for sure. I think we probably should be in a position to credibly threaten to leave if they don’t get their act together and form a unity government. I don’t think Bush can do that or will do that. I don’t think Congress could make him either. Congress only has very blunt instruments at its disposal here. I don’t know what people expect from the Democrats. Even a President couldn’t magically fix this through A Plan you could describe months in advance–what do you think Nancy Pelosi is going to do in control of the house?
The only thing I’m not at all vague on is that I want the Bayn Jabar the hell out of the Interior Ministry, as soon as possible.
“I certainly admit, it’s a touchy subject, but simply ruling it out of bounds and saying it can’t be discussed,”
I don’t. I just think having a childish mantra of “you can’t favor military acts without being willing to fight yourself” is a) simple-minded; and b) fundamentally anti-democratic.
In a democracy, we vote in favor of and in opposition to all sorts of things we don’t personally engage in; we don’t look askance at that as a general case, and there’s no reason we should; there’s nothing whatever hypocritical about this.
Alonzo: “It’s called leadership by example!”
Sure, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s simply not mandatory to legimitately favoring a policy, and suggestions or declarations that it is is wrong.
“I would be far more impressed with the views of anyone who favors war if they were willing to risk their own life or those of their family members” is an utterly legitimate point; suggesting that if one isn’t so willing, that one’s policy must be wrong, or that the person must be a hypocrite, is not.
“Gary, I think your logic bus has gone driven off the cliff here – I oppose the war because I don’t want anyone in harms way, including Iraqis.”
I think, in retrospect, that the war was a bad idea. But to suggest that if it hadn’t happened, no one would have been in harms way is missing an entirely crucial point.
As I’ve pointed out endlessly ever since long before the war, there was no moral choice that was free, no moral choice as to a policy that didn’t lead to people suffering and dying tragically.
I now agree that the war was a mistake. But not having it certainly would not have lead to no one being in harms way, specifically Iraqis. Remember when the debate was about the tragic harm to Iraqis of sanctions?
Arguing as if war was the only choice with suffering is to discuss only half the argument. It wasn’t a choice between war and puppies and kite-flying.
It wasn’t a choice between war and puppies and kite-flying.
Gary, you’re certainly right in the aggregate. But we don’t live in the aggregate. Specific individuals have died as a result of the war who would very likely not have died had there been no war. Wars are much more random, in terms of dealing out harm, than brutal dictatorships. And obviously, few if any of the US military deaths/injuries would have occurred.
I’m late to the conversation, and only a short-timer, so I hope I’m not repeating anyone when I say that I look forward to the President’s presentation of the SH plan for victory. Because at least it is an attempt at winning, and an attempt to be honest about what that means. Rather than just a bit of pandering and sloganeering, which seems to be the current Admin strategy.
What I’m not looking forward to — but know I will hear — is about how I (and others like me — not in power, and didn’t vote for the people who are in power) am somehow responsible because the Admin hasn’t (a) fought the war many supporters thought should have been fought and (b) has fought the war it did decide to fight badly. The war SH, von, and CB want to fight is not now, and never has been on the menu. The only war on the menu is the one we’ve had for 3 years, including what it is ineluctibly folding into. Do you guys want that war — the one we’ll have — or do you think disengagement, on our terms, is maybe more in our interests?
That’s the only choice we get.
Mr. Holsclaw:
Kerry’s “we should expand the military but never send any more people to Iraq” idea was profoundly strange.
Posted March 23, 2006 at 05:15 PM
Ever since you first brought this up months ago, I have struggled to understand why you thought it more reasonable to vote for someone who says there is no need to increase the size of the Armed Forces than to vote for someone who wants to make the increase but not deploy the troops as you feel necessary.
In either case, to get more troops into Iraq would require that the president change his mind. Given that, which option would get the troops to Iraq more quickly?
A) the troops are available but must be redeployed
B) the troops must be recruited, trained, and then deployed
Even assuming that Bush would see the necessity for more troops sooner than Kerry (a highly questionable assumption, IMO) the second option would surely take far more time.
“I would be far more impressed with the views of anyone who favors war if they were willing to risk their own life or those of their family members.”
I live in San Diego–near where the Marines train. I’ve had friends die in the war. The idea that I don’t feel any of the pain of sending people off to war just makes me so angry. I feel it. I know it. There is a person I will never see alive again because of it.
Sebastian: As for “So you can either suck it up and support your president and your party, or join the loyal opposition.” what does joining the loyal opposition get me? Democrats won’t tell me what their foreign policy will look like. Advice from upthread is that the ought not tell me. So why would I choose them?
Because you’ve claimed for quite some time now to be opposed to torture. Your claim to be opposed to torture looks hypocritical if you continue to loyally support a pro-torture President and administration.
Advice from upthread is that the ought not tell me. So why would I choose them?
I guess this is referring to me. My point isn’t that they ought not to tell you, it is that it is impossible for them to set out their foreign policy in a way that would permit reasoned debate given the established tendencies of the Republican party as well as the fact that a foreign policy (towards Iran, which was your example) made absent full information would be foolhardy at best. This is quite different from saying ‘they ought not to tell me’.
It occurs to me that had Kerry won, Republicans in Congress, and other supporters of a more serious war effort, might have an easier time arguing for increases in troop strength. They wouldn’t be stuck in one of those classic GWB ‘too big to fail’ dilemmas. And who can say whether given a united Rep party, the full noise machine, enough Dems who don’t want to be on the wrong end of ‘who lost Iraq’ and a pretty narrow mandate after all, it might not have worked.
As it is, of course, no Dem need be on the wrong end of the WLI stick: win or lose, this is the President’s show. He doesn’t watch polls, and isn’t affected by the media: he’s fighting this thing his way, all the way. Certainly no Dem in Congress has prevented the Pres from having anything he wants or needs to prevail in Iraq.
You know, the US has a different electoral system than Germany. We don’t vote for parties. We vote for individuals. SH doesn’t have to worry about whether or not Howard Dean, or Hillary Clinton, have articulated visions for how the Iraq thing ought to be wound down. He can choose between Congresswoman Davis (for example) and whoever is running against her this fall. If (assuming he’s her constituent — it’s not a random choice, but one with insufficient information) he wants to know her position, he may be able to get it from her. He can do the same with Diane Feinstein.
Obviously, SH (and anyone else) can complain about the positions my congressman takes. If they don’t live here, though, I’m not sure how much he ought to care, or even how much I want him to care.
“I would be far more impressed with the views of anyone who favors war if they were willing to risk their own life or those of their family members” is an utterly legitimate point; suggesting that if one isn’t so willing, that one’s policy must be wrong, or that the person must be a hypocrite, is not.
I would not call such a person a hypocrite. I have another word in mind and it starts with the letter c.
Actually, just talking for myself, it’s perfectly all right by me if SH never votes for a Democrat in his life, so whoever it is who’s trying to convince him should stop. It does appear that keeping him happy would involve bombing Iran, so it’s all to the good.
I thought this Albright LATimes op-ed was remarkably on target. The three suggestions she offered were
The first is to understand that although we all want to “end tyranny in this world,” that is a fantasy unless we begin to solve hard problems. Iraq is increasingly a gang war that can be solved in one of two ways: by one side imposing its will or by all the legitimate players having a piece of the power. The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee.
Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran — not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today’s warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington’s overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. As for Iran’s choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes.
Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush’s “march of freedom” is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted — in Western eyes — freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.
The entity currently known as Alonzo Quijano is now banned. That he’s Don Q is no longer in doubt. Sneaking back in and pretending he hadn’t been banished previously I can overlook; failure to learn from said banishments just gets you banished again.
He didn’t do anything explicitly wrong, but he was on that path. And I did tell him to behave.
Write the kitty if you feel you’ve been wronged, Alonzo, or (more likely) sneak in under new addresses that will get added to the banned list. Or, better yet, get your own blog and say whatever you please there.
And a thread is up at HoCB on banning in particular and general.
I think the “chickhawk” charge is more acceptable if the target is arguing, as some war supporters do, that the war is to prevent an existential threat to the country.
Whether it’s fallacy or not: should that depend on context?
“Sneaking back in and pretending he hadn’t been banished previously I can overlook; failure to learn from said banishments just gets you banished again.”
I’d still like to know what the terms of banishment are: what’s the length of time for it? Does it vary, and if so, by what criteria?
You guys should spend more time listening to what the Pentagon is saying and less time reading the NYT or whatever forms the basis of the conventional wisdom on this blog. Because their predictions have pretty much been born out by events. They cannot predict the level of violence by the insurgency. But just because someone sets off a bomb does not mean that all is lost.
The administration’s plan is working.
Iraqis are taking over battle space and bases. If they would get off their asses and form a government, things would improve rapidly.
My two cents for whatever its worth.
“I think the ‘chickhawk’ charge is more acceptable if the target is arguing, as some war supporters do, that the war is to prevent an existential threat to the country.”
I don’t follow the logic here, I’m afraid. Care to unpack it?
He didn’t do anything explicitly wrong, but he was on that path. And I did tell him to behave.
It’s a good thing you can read my mind and predict the future.
Why worry about the Dems? This is a volunteer army. That doesn’t mean an army that can be treated like toy soldiers by an addled exec branch. Squeeze recruitment. Every 18 to 25 year old who is tempted to join the army at the moment should be snowed with anti-recruitment propaganda. When there are no more refreshments for this obvious disaster, the White House will have to bring the troops home. And to build up the army again, we might have to return to the constitution, which never envisioned a passive, corrupt congress passing warmaking power to an executive branch that abuses it like George III with his hessian mercenaries.
Squeeze the army to death, and the rest will follow.
Yes, it’s scary how good I am at both of those things.
$10.74 is the cost of the “raise” for new recruits. If you wish to guess that the total costs are ten times that of the raise per year (which would surprise me greatly) I would still be happy to pay $107.40 per person in new taxes per year. I would also be willing to cut quite a bit in other spending even without a war on as a matter of personal political philosophy. Since the initial question “How much are you willing to raise taxes, and how much of the non-military budget are you willing to see eliminated altogether, to pay for it all?” is in the form suggesting that my commitment to raising taxes for the war is not enough, I’m going to consider it settled that I am and move on unless there are further objections.
Ahem. Pardon me.
Yes, $20,000 times 150,000 soldiers leads to something over $10/year per American. But first of all you don’t just give the raise to the new recruits. You give it to everyone. Second, when calculating the cost of the new recruits you don’t just count how big a raise they get, you count their total pay. So this $10.74, or even $107.40, is considerably off the mark.
We are spending somewhere between $70 and $100 billion a year on the war. It’s probably on the high end of that, but call it $75 billion. Adding 150,000 troops seems likely to double that number, so you are talking about adding over $250/person, $1000 for a family of four, to the tab. And it’s not clear that that covers costs of caring for disabled veterans, among other things.
And again, these are out-of-pocket costs. They do not reflect the impact on the economy of the war, which is substantial even if you do not accept all the Stiglitz/Bilmes calculations.
Now, you may be happy to accept the needed tax increase, but the bigger that number the less realistic your hopes.
I’d still like to know what the terms of banishment are: what’s the length of time for it? Does it vary, and if so, by what criteria?
“How long a time lies in one little word!”
I think folks on both sides of the debate in the US continually confuse Iraq with a minor strategic mishap in South East Asia 40 years ago.
The US has an open ended commitment to the Persian Gulf, this is a very serious area of national interest, that’s why the fifth fleet lives there. It also has a sentimental attachment to Israel.
The Iraq war has disastrously shifted the balance of power in the region towards Tehran. We are looking at not just a likely civil war and the fragmentation of Iraq but a possible regional war around the Persian Gulf. The occupation has been a fairly gentle constabulary operation but still was enough to run the all volunteer land army ragged, what’s coming may be overwhelming.
If the worst happens the US will have to draft a new 500,000 man land army to protect its energy interests beyond Iraq. Every significant military on the planet will be there too as oil sky rockets and trashes their economies. We will be calling this war WWIII.