It may be too strongly worded to call what is going on in Iraq a ‘civil war’. But while using that term, Harry has an excellent discussion of what is going on in Iraq at a strategic level. I strongly encourage you to read it all, but since I know some of you won’t, here are some very important selections:
I am sure there are others, better qualified in the terminology than me, who would raise an objection to the phrase ‘civil war’. Probably, I guess, they would point to the fact that there has been an invasion of the country by a foreign force.
But there are plenty of civil wars in the modern era which have seen foreign powers taking sides in varying forms, either directly or through proxies and that doesn’t take away the fact that the struggle was essentially between two domestic forces.
In Iraq there are two clearly identifiable camps – those who wish for peace in their country, to hold elections and establish democratic structures and those who oppose them. The latter group wish to impose their Islamist ideology across Iraq and are waging jihad towards that end, aided in certain cases by Ba’athists keen to return to power in a future dictatorship.
Both camps enjoy the support of non-Iraqis in terms of active armed combatants, financial and logistical help.
The alternative to viewing the violence in Iraq as a civil war is to see it as a war of resistance against occupation. A war of national liberation. This is a view held by many on the western left but it is mistaken for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the pro-democracy camp contains many who wish to see the occupation end as soon as possible, including (but by no means limited to) the Iraqi Communist Party.
In its most recent statement the ICP said:
The Central Committee meeting dealt at length with the security situation, with acts of violence, sabotage, terror, kidnapping and hostage taking. These acts vary in methods and forms, with the victims from many nationalities, the majority being Iraqis. However, their essence remains the same: they are desperate criminal acts that aim to inflict more harm on our people, destabilize the situation and obstruct the political process.
The meeting stressed anew the importance of defeating the forces of terror and crime as well as restoring peace and order. This is closely related with achieving the objectives of the transitional stage, ending the foreign military presence, tackling the legacy of the defeated regime, advancing on the path of reconstruction and building institutions of a democratic state.
In other words, the ending of the occupation requires the defeat of terrorism in Iraq. Terrorism is therefore seen by Iraqi communists (and I would suspect many others in the pro-democracy camp) as an obstacle to national liberation.
…
But the strongest argument against the notion of the conflict in Iraq being a nationalist one and not a civil war, is to ask ourselves what would likely happen if the occupying armies pulled out of the country. Does anyone seriously believe that the Islamist terror groups would put down their weapons, give up the jihad and join the political process?
No, we can be fairly certain that they would continue to fight and seek to wipe out the democratic forces in Iraq and destroy any chance of a democratic political system in the country. Afghanistan shows clearly that the jihad doesn’t stop when the infidels have left town and it also should remind us that the Islamists care not a jot if a country is utterly wrecked by the continuation of armed struggle.
The nationality or even the religion of an enemy matters little to a jihadist – again history shows us that violent Islamists have shown no reluctance to slaughter their Muslim opponents.
The end of the occupation would not bring about the end of violence and would not result in the civil war being over. But it would hugely change the balance of forces in that civil war and not in favour of those who wish to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq.
In my view this is exactly right. Nothing good is likely to come out of a prolonged civil war ending in an Islamist government. Withdrawing US troops wouldn’t contribute to peace in Iraq, it would just make it far more likely that jihadists could win after provoking a long and bloody civil war. We can look at the struggles and genocide in the Sudan if we want to see what happens when such a government tries to impose sharia law and jihadist ideology on a population with large minority groups opposed to such a plan. Removing US soldiers is likely to lead to more killing and a far sicker government if it is done before such jihadists are soundly defeated in Iraq.
That is why I am so disturbed by Kerry’s suggestions on Iraq. His focus is on removing troops from Iraq when (if he wants to do that) his focus ought to be on quickly defeating the jihadists in Iraq. Removing the troops ought to be a beneficial side effect of winning. Abandoning Iraq to chaos is likely to create the type of failed state that Afghanistan was.
[[
In Iraq there are two clearly identifiable camps – those who wish for peace in their country, to hold elections and establish democratic structures and those who oppose them. The latter group wish to impose their Islamist ideology across Iraq and are waging jihad towards that end, aided in certain cases by Ba’athists keen to return to power in a future dictatorship.
]]
Two groups? One wants 1 – Peace 2 – Elections and 3 – Democratic Structures?
What about the people who want 1 – Peace 2 – Elections and don’t care about Democratic structures?
Do they get a group?
What about people who want 1 – Peace but don’t care about Elections and Democratic structures?
Also does our side wants 1 – Peace more than the other sides?
The thing about this kind of propaganda is that it only fools Americans here. Nobody in Iraq would buy a division of Iraq into these “clearly identifiable camps”.
[[
But the strongest argument against the notion of the conflict in Iraq being a nationalist one and not a civil war, is to ask ourselves what would likely happen if the occupying armies pulled out of the country. Does anyone seriously believe that the Islamist terror groups would put down their weapons, give up the jihad and join the political process?
]]
There are two axes: Pro-American vs Mainstream (which means Pro-Anti Israel) and Secular vs Islamist
Americans support Israel and think it is immoral to do otherwise.
Muslims and Arabs in the Middle East perceive Israel essentially the same way African perceived South Africa – for the same reasons. You’ll argue the Muslims and Arabs are wrong but that’s not really that important right now.
Nobody in the political mainstream in the middle east does or can support Israel or America as long as America is Israel’s unlimited reserve.
That leaves Islamists who support America and Non-Islamists who support America as two lunatic fringes who have no possibility of holding power without the active support of the US military.
At best, those fringes could rule with as relatively little American support as Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan but none of those fringe governments could survive without American help putting down their people. Even that is at least half a generation and several thousand US casualties away. Democracy was always out of the question. Democracy has always been a lie Americans tell only to each other.
On the Anti-American, Anti-Israel side there are Islamists and Baathists. Why? Because Baathism is defined as any secular ideology that does not side with the West, in other words, anyone who not an Islamist is a Baathist by default if they are part of the political mainstream.
The first nationalist impulse in the middle east created Baathist nations – secular nations that aimed for modern economies freedom of religion and emancipation of women. These nations also had mainstream views about Israel, as said before, the same views Zambia had towards South Africa.
The defeat of the Baathists has led to the potential rise of the Islamists. They also have mainstream views toward Israel and Israel’s big patron across the Atlantic.
All mainstream political actors are fighting against the creation of an unrepresentative state that survives at the whim of the US. There are anti-mainstream states that are religious such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and anti-mainstream states that are secular such as Egypt and Jordan. Neither is acceptable to most people in the Middle East.
No side in this is fighting for democracy or “Democratic Structures”. I’m puzzled if you are lying to yourself when you write or repeat this or if you really believe it.
Sebastian, I think it’s likely that a) Opposition to the government, whether we’re calling them guerrillas, terrorists or whatever, will not decrease with the withdrawal of occupying forces; and that b) the government will find it difficult to say the least to cope.
Not that I agree with withdrawal, but I’m curious to know what you think is the solution? Prolonged stay in Iraq until this somehow dies down?
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1
“his focus ought to be on quickly defeating the jihadists in Iraq”
How does one “defeat the jihadists” in what is essentially a three-way civil war between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, each backed by foreign powers with ulterior motives? The likes of Zarqawi may indeed conceive of their actions as a struggle for Islam, but it seems pretty clear at this point that the majority aren’t fighting for religion per se, but for ethnic spoils, and short of genocide I don’t see how a simple “kill em all” strategy is going to help that.
I suppose what I’d like to see is some recognition in the policies advocated by either side in the US that this really *is* a *civil* war we’re looking at in Iraq. Do we back one or two sides? Do we impose a strongman to hold everything together? What do we do beyond firefighting one city at a time in a likely futile effort to stave off the inevitable?
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt
iD8DBQFBSWl7OgWD1ZKzuwkRAr66AJ4mGCXeYBCGVOGGjkMdu1PMqxg1OACeJI0m
0h39K+twZ/dYDtBZgOAg/cs=
=YsAQ
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Thinking about Consequences
Sebastian Holsclaw links to an entry at Harry’s Place that gets around to discussing the prognosis I myself had made earlier about the way things are going in Iraq – that what we are seeing is an incipient civil war
Two corrections:
1. Sebastian – I’m no fan of Kerry’s foreign policies, but as a matter of fact I think you are misrepresenting him: he has cautioned against “cutting and running” on many an occasion.
2. Everyone – It’s not clear to me that the “civil war” that’s going on in Iraq is a Sunni vs Shiite vs Kurd thing. On the contrary: Apart from a little ethnic cleansing by the Kurds – which the Americans have done little to stop – I understand that the violence is mainly directed against foreigners and the government, who are perceived as puppets and collaborators. Of course there are also some nutjob Al Quaeda terrorists killing random civilians, but they have about the same base of support as the Americans in the general population – i.e. virtually none.
His focus is on removing troops from Iraq
Kerry suggests:
1. remove Americans
2. replace them with non-Americans
while it might be difficult to get allies to lend people to do that job, it is not at all the same as “abandoning” Iraq. to my knowledge he has never suggested simply pulling out and leaving Iraq to the wolves. you just made that up.
and even worse, you have not a word against the fools who got us into this situation; not a hint that their ineptitude and bumbling is at all to blame for creating the current situation and that there is no reason at all to believe they’ll suddenly start to do things right – they’ve had 18 months to get it wrong. no, only a dire warning that Kerry’s idea is wrong, and only then because you misrepresent his position.
a strawman soaked in denial
Echoing Robin’s second point; I’d also add there’s a nationalist faction at play as well.
Frankly, this nonsense about a ‘good vs. evil’ view of Iraq is precisely the kind of gross miscalculation that is responsible for the quagmire we’re in today.
You’ll never find a solution if you’re not honest about the nature and scope of the problem.
His focus is on removing troops from Iraq when (if he wants to do that) his focus ought to be on quickly defeating the jihadists in Iraq.
Where has Kerry said that his focus is on removing troops from Iraq? Can you cite the speech in which he said so? (Full context is important: all too often, not that I’m suggesting you’re doing this, single sentences have been quoted out of context to imply that the speaker meant what, from the whole speech, he didn’t mean.)
To the contrary, from all I’ve heard, Kerry’s focus is on not cutting and running – that it’s important to succeed in Iraq.
You may interpret this as “fighting the jihadists”. I’d be reluctant to do so, since I feel it’s worse than useless to interpret what’s going on in Iraq as a jihad – it’s offensive. Muslims are fighting Muslims, as well as the foreign army of occupation.
But I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Kerry believes the first priority is to remove US troops. What speech of his, what policy paper, did you read that you interpreted thus?
His focus is on removing troops from Iraq when (if he wants to do that) his focus ought to be on quickly defeating the jihadists in Iraq.
Where has Kerry said that his focus is on removing troops from Iraq? Can you cite the speech in which he said so? (Full context is important: all too often, not that I’m suggesting you’re doing this, single sentences have been quoted out of context to imply that the speaker meant what, from the whole speech, he didn’t mean.)
To the contrary, from all I’ve heard, Kerry’s focus is on not cutting and running – that it’s important to succeed in Iraq.
You may interpret this as “fighting the jihadists”. I’d be reluctant to do so, since I feel it’s worse than useless to interpret what’s going on in Iraq as a jihad – it’s offensive. Muslims are fighting Muslims, as well as the foreign army of occupation.
But I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Kerry believes the first priority is to remove US troops. What speech of his, what policy paper, did you read that you interpreted thus?
Apologies for the double post. I’ve been having trouble seeing my first successful post both here and over at Political Animal.
I have to agree with cleek and Jes: the situation in Iraq is in large part due to the Bush League’s complete failure to adequately plan for the post-invasion security needs of Iraq. The notion that somehow a Kerry administration will make things worse is laughable.
That is why I am so disturbed by Kerry’s suggestions on Iraq. His focus is on removing troops from Iraq
You’re banging that drum every chance you get Sebastian, but it’s still not resonating. Forget that wanting to bring the troops home should be near the top of the agenda of whoever’s in the White House in every conflict.
Let’s compare Kerry’s statements with those of Bush
At the RNC, Bush noted:
Now Kerry:
Why does Kerry disturb you so much again?
For clarity, that was meant to be
Forget that wanting to bring the troops home as quickly as possible should be near the top of the agenda of whoever’s in the White House in every conflict.
Yea, reading the quotes from people who actually know what they’re talking about, it’s pretty darn clear the situation is FUBAR.
The situation that the anti-war crowd predicted well before the war has become reality and now we have absolutely no good choices. Rather than show all our enemies that we’re tough and not going to take it any more, we’ve instead shown them that we’re a bunch of absolute fools who gladly throw themselves at tar babies because we’re driven by pathetically laughable theories of how the real world works.
All I got to say is thanks for situation, morons. Myself, I think that the “pro-war” crowd has completely lost anything that even approaches credibility. It’s the same attitude that Sebastian expressed previously in his “Culture War” post which got us into this god forsaken mess and it’s pretty clear to me that this same attitude will make things even worse.
The only good way out of a nasty trap is to never get into it in the first place. And while we will likely never figure out a good way to escape the current trap these jokers have gotten ourselves into, it’s pretty clear that we shouldn’t be listening to their inane babbling about their fantasy world of “prisons, fictional westerns and third grade playgrounds” unless we want to get into even worse situations.
Time to watch “Lawrence of Arabia” again.
Sebastian: to echo and elaborate on what other people have said, I think that it’s a mistake to divide the people in Iraq into two groups, peaceful and Islamist. Harry argues that it is by noting, first, that the fact of a foreign invasion doesn’t show that it’s not a civil war. This is true, but that doesn’t show that it is a civil war either. He then says: there are two identifiable camps in Iraq: those who wish for peace and those who oppose them. Now: we can, if we wish, divide Iraqis into these two groups. Presumably, in any country in which there is fighting we can divide the population into two groups: those who want the fighting to stop and those who don’t. But that doesn’t show that those who want the fighting to go on have anything in common beyond that desire, and in particular it does not show either that they are a “group” in any but this nominal sense, or that they have any purpose in common other than fighting.
He then argues that the war is not a war of national liberation, on the grounds that some people who oppose fighting do so on the grounds that peace will get us out of Iraq faster than war. But this doesn’t show that those who fight don’t do so because they want to get us out and think that fighting is the best way to do so; it shows only that not all the people who want to get us out have taken up arms.
Finally, he says that we can see that it’s not a nationalist struggle if we ask ourselves, what would happen if we left? Would everyone say, right, now we’re done, and lay down their weapons? No. But that just shows that getting us out is not their only aim (and, in particular, that some of them might have quite definite views about who should be in charge once we leave), not that it’s not their primary one.
My point in all of this is just that whatever the merits of his claims, he hasn’t begun to show that they are true. Personally, I find it less useful to try to categorize the war in Iraq (civil war or war of liberation?) than to try to figure out what, in detail, is happening there, bearing in mind that it might or might not fit neatly into my various categories. When I do so, I find myself thinking: while there are lots of jihadists, I don’t think we know nearly enough about the people who are fighting us to say that all of them are jihadists. In particular, any residual Ba’athists seem unlikely to be jihadists, as do those people (and I assume they exist) who just want us out, but who have a different view of what will make us leave than the Communists Harry cites. Also, even among the jihadists, there are different and inconsistent views about which version of Islam should ultimately be dominant, so to think of all jihadists as constituting one group would be deeply misleading.
About your comments: like you, I have never been in favor of cutting and running. When, in the debates, I heard Sharpton and Kucinich say: this war was wrong, and so it’s wrong to continue it, the analogy that leapt to mind was: suppose I decided to kidnap you so that I could remove one of your kidneys and sell it on the black market; and suppose that, having opened you up and cut your kidney out, I suddenly thought: good heavens, this is wrong. Would the right conclusion, at that point, be to say, well, I should just stop, rather than closing your wound so you didn’t bleed to death? Obviously not. But as others have noted, I have never heard Kerry say this.
I do wonder, though, what exactly you think that “defeating” the jihadists means, and whether you think it can be done militarily. For myself, I’m not sure. This does not mean that I favor cutting and running; what it means is that I sometimes wonder whether (to continue my analogy above) the situation we’re in is less like a surgeon who has to finish a job in a more or less well-defined way, and more like a surgeon who, after beginning a procedure, discovers that the patient is hemophiliac in a world where there are no clotting agents. Which is to say: if we can’t “defeat the jihadists” using military means, or any other means we can think of, we should perhaps not have started this procedure in the first place.
And of course, if this is to be an analogy to our current situation, we should add that the surgeon is incompetent. This is the only reason why I have ever been tempted to think we should just leave: the thought that whatever we might do at this point to make things better, Bush’s record shows that he in particular is not likely to do it, or to do it well enough to succeed. The reason I don’t ultimately conclude that we should pull out is because I think: in a few months we might replace him with someone who is competent to do the job.
Did you people watch Kerry’s acceptance speech? He confabulates on the chances of getting foreign soldiers in Iraq and turns that into an extended riff about removing US soldiers and replacing them with these not-ever-going-to-be-available foreign troops.
If you honestly believe that crap, please identify whose troops you believe will be available. And if they are from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran or Turkey (which is unlikely anyway) please explain why having troops from those countries would help as opposed to further agitating one of the large ethnic groups. None of this ‘we can wait till he gets into office crap’, the target countries should be discernable if this isn’t completely made up.
I need to know which fantasy country you are relying on for your dream that substantial US troops are going to be replaced if Kerry gets elected.
BTW any realistic assessment of the possibility of foreign troops would make Russia or Turkey the most likely country to provide troops. But unless you think that shelling cities completely indiscriminately is the best way to go about this, you might want to think three or four times before advocating Russian troops in Iraq. And unless you are willing to completely turn the Kurds into an anti-government group you might want to think about six times before suggesting a huge Turkish presence.
“Also, even among the jihadists, there are different and inconsistent views about which version of Islam should ultimately be dominant, so to think of all jihadists as constituting one group would be deeply misleading.”
You don’t have to think of them as one group to see the need to fight them.
All of them will fight any non-Islamic non-sharia based system. As such if they win they will have to do it over the dead bodies of the Kurds which means that their success is contingent upon a bloody civil war and eventual genocide. Unless that is acceptable they have to be fought and defeated. The fact that if they succeeded they would then kill each other to determine which particular sick brand of government would prevail is of absolutely no consequence to those unwilling to permit the extended civil war and genocide that would be necessary to get to that point.
All of them will fight any non-Islamic non-sharia based system. As such if they win they will have to do it over the dead bodies of the Kurds which means that their success is contingent upon a bloody civil war and eventual genocide. Unless that is acceptable they have to be fought and defeated.
Far cry from being met with flowers and watching democracy bloom, isn’t it? You think someone might have thought about this BEFORE invading.
Edward,
As I have said before at this site… I have found no proof that someone in the Bush Administration claimed we would be met with flowers.
MR. RUSSERT: People like Ahmed Chalabi, former Iraqis who came in and briefed—you talked about—did they sell us a bill of goods? Did they tell us this would be easier, that we’d be welcomed with flowers, and not the kind of armed resistance we’re being met with?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think they felt—certainly, they were advocates of the U.S. action because they wanted to liberate Iraq from, you know, what has been one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century, the Saddam Hussein regime. And I see and receive evidence on a fairly regular basis. I mean, if you go out and
look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll find that there is widespread support.
You act as if no one thought of the dangers of invading before the war. Even Bush I knew that going into Baghdad was a huge undertaking. Your comment is absurd.
Sebastian: Before you get carried away mischaracterizing Kerry’s plans for Iraq, let me remind of the real, honest-to-God situation right now.
A July 2004 NIE has stated about the best we can hope for is the status quo in Iraq. That is, an unstable Iraq with frequent crises and upheavals. That’s the best scenario. The worst scenario is a great deal gloomier.
Mind you, this NIE was written in July and things have deteriorated since then.
Yet, you’d prefer we leave the problem of Iraq to the very man who told us “Mission Accomplished” and that we’d be greeted as ‘liberators.’ Further, his appointed administration continues to tell us that not only are things A-OK in Iraq–they’re actually improving.
That’s the reality.
But you’d rather base your opinions on a brief paragraph, addressing Iraq (and terrorism), in Kerry’s acceptance speech? Why not consult his policy papers or op/eds on the issue?
Frankly, I’m pretty pessimistic about Iraq–even under a President Kerry. But know this: any chance of success (whatever that means) in Iraq will require international support. It’s absolutely essential. And the fact is we aren’t likely to get that international support under Bush.
The latter group wish to impose their Islamist ideology across Iraq and are waging jihad towards that end, aided in certain cases by Ba’athists keen to return to power in a future dictatorship.
This strikes me as pure guesswork at this stage. What evidence is there that 1) the insurgents are unified, or 2) they’re primarily driven by a desire to turn Iraq into an Islamist state? I mean, this is a nice theory in that it seemingly covers all the bases, but it lacks any proof.
As I have said before at this site… I have found no proof that someone in the Bush Administration claimed we would be met with flowers.
Dick Cheney still part of Bush Administration?
Of course, we have various Bush surrogates like Kenneth Adelman predicting Iraq would be “a cakewalk.”
If anyone is interested Wretchard had some input on the Iraq situation today.
Iraq, Part 1
Blue,
Absurd? Hmmpf.
This is like the old argument about whether or not anyone in the administration actually used the term “imminent threat.” You can cling to the distinction if it comforts you, but when the national sense of it is the adminstration was comfortable with the meme, it falls on them, not me to correct it.
The NYTimes asserted that the administration felt this way:
Yes, it’s true that the Bush administration is responsible only for what it says (although they seem to feel they’re only responsible for what’s “technically true” about what they say), but once an idea has entered into the national consciousness, it only serves to make you look silly to demand the quote that justifies that consciouness, as if the Administration doesn’t allow that consciouness to work in its favor.
Edward,
Did you just say…
The NYTimes asserted that the administration felt this way:
Ha Ha Ha… good one. If the NYTimes made an assertion then it must be true.
Write back when you’re feeling less snarky, Blue…I don’t have a taste for it today (odd for me, I know)…
meanwhile, further to my point about the misnomer that the insurgents are definable under one umbrella with one goal, (as asserted in the quoted text above):
From today’s Healing Iraq:
I’m glad JadeGold brought up the NIE. I think it’s pretty clear that we don’t have any good choices left. And the reason why we’re in this situation is not because of the evil terrorist/islamists. Rather it is because the complete and utter failure of the planning for this occupation and the laughable way it has been carried out (I’m thinking of the recent spate of articles detailing the reliance on ideology rather than actual skills and expertise in the staffing of the CPA and attendent organizations).
The NIE clearly shows that things are FUBAR. This means that it is highly likely that there is no way this will work out. The question then becomes, what is the best we can pull out of the situation. And the answer may well be “absolutely nothing” – i.e. we’ll be lucky to escape out of this with a complete disaster and not Afghanistan on steroids.
Sebastian ridicules Kerry’s suggestions about getting more foreign troops involved. While it’s clear that this would be an extremely hard thing to pull off, and maybe there isn’t enough foreign troops available or maybe the wrong mix, the question is “what’s the alternative?”.
We don’t have the troops ourselves. Perhaps Sebastian will graciously tell us which fantasy brigades he proposes we use in place of these fantasy foreign troops?
Sebastian,
Even if we’re limiting our descriptive options to “civil war” or “nationalist resistance to occupation”, I’m not sure we can’t call the situation both. There are undoubtedly Iraqis fighting for reasons of nationalistic pride against what they see as a foreign invader, as well as other Iraqis who lend them aid and support due to that same perception. On the other hand, as you and other posters point out, there are other Iraqis who are just fighting to win power for their own particular ethnic/religious/political group.
The catch-22 is that if we cut and run from Iraq, we abandon the country to groups in that second category. This leads to indeterminable civil war, probably ending up with an opressive, anti-american regime in charge. On the other hand, the more we crack down militarily, the more Iraqis move into the first category, leading to an unequivocable nationalist uprising against the occupation.
The only possible solution seems to be a battle for the hearts and minds of the general Iraqi population – a fight which cannot be won primarily by blowing people up. Problem is, that’s a really hard thing to do, especially at the point we’ve gotten to. I know for a fact that Bush can’t pull it off. I’ll be happily surprised if Kerry can manage it.
If we can’t manage the path of winning the peace the way it should have been won in the first place, then we’re to the point where we need to reframe the debate about our further actions. Instead of arguing for the “best” approach, we need to find the “least awful” path of action, bearing in mind that whichever way we go, people will likely be dying due to our decisions. Depressing.
Edward,
Sorry didn’t mean to be so snarky… but really… to quote the Times about Bush is just wrong.
Jadegold,
Thanks for proving my point… no mention of flowers.
Both statements by Cheney are accurate. The majority of Iraqis are glad we got rid of Hussein and are thankful to the U.S.
From your linked article:
“On CBS’s “Face the Nation” on March 16, Cheney said the fight would be “weeks rather than months. There’s always the possibility of complications that you can’t anticipate, but I have great confidence in our troops.” Cheney also predicted the fight would “go relatively quickly, but we can’t count on that.”
“It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not “put up such a struggle,” and that even “significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside.”
“In September 2002, he said that “you always plan for the worst,”
From Bush:
“On Oct. 7, the president said “military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures.”
“And in the Jan. 28, State of the Union address, Bush said: “The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not.”
Your attempt at cherry picking seems to be unsupported by the article in which you picked.
” The only possible solution seems to be a battle for the hearts and minds of the general Iraqi population”
Well, this assumes it is possible to pull this off. It’s clear that at this point, we’ve lost the battle for hearts and minds. So the question is, is it actually possible to win that battle at all. Yes, it’s the obvious solution, but it may not a solution that is actually possible to actually accomplish in what we normally refer to as reality.
It may have been possible last year. It may have even been possible in the first part of this year. But from my reading of the reports regarding the NIE, as well as the other reports of experts in the area, it’s pretty clear that this is no longer an option.
It’s a bit like saying “gee, we really need to get rid of this gravity thing in order to build this bridge”. Nice theory, but zero probability of actually happening so you need to come up with another solution which doesn’t involve the negation of gravity.
no mention of flowers
Seriously, that’s what you are hanging your hat on? When the Vice President predicted the streets would “erupt in joy,” the omission of the word ‘flowers’ is what you are relying on to rebut the assertion that the administration was wildly, unjustifiably overoptimistic about the postwar scenario in Iraq?
Seriously?
Blue
The problem with pulling quotes is that many of them work against your own argument.
Can you show any evidence that the administration followed up on this statement:
“In September 2002, he said that “you always plan for the worst,”
Because I think the worst has come to pass.
“We don’t have the troops ourselves. Perhaps Sebastian will graciously tell us which fantasy brigades he proposes we use in place of these fantasy foreign troops?”
What a stupid thing to say. Our troops are there now. You might have heard of them? I’m not talking about withdrawing them, Kerry is. We have troops stationed all over the world.
My views on the topic of how to get more troops are well known and not fantasy oriented. Since October of 2001 I have argued that we need to:
1) increase military pay to enlisted soldiers because the chances of being deployed in war have dramatically increased;
2) Authorize a 30 to 40% troop level increase.
3) Put some weapons programs which are not particularly suited to this war on hold to pay for some of that.
4) Cut farm subsidies to pay for that.
5) Increase taxes slightly to pay for that.
Kerry has the very odd proposal that we increase troop levels but decrease their deployment in the Middle East, which doesn’t make sense at all. The whole reason we need more troops is because they are needed for various engagements in the Middle East. Bush pretends that we don’t need more troops in the long run. I’ll admit that neither of those two options are ideal but neither party actually listens to me.
As far as the above being realistic, it is at least an order of magnitude more realistic than getting more troops out of countries that aren’t interested, weren’t interested under Clinton, and aren’t going to be interested under a Kerry administration.
I note that none of you have engaged on the issue of where foreign troops would be coming from. I’m going to press it. You need to either point to some countries that have a total of 80,000-150,000 troops willing and available in aggregate, or you need to admit that talking about foreign troops coming into Iraq and dying in the place of American troops is a distraction from discussing the realities of the situation.
1) If you want to you can advocate having American soldiers die to try to make something out of Iraq. That is hard but real.
2) You can advocate leaving Iraq and washing our hands of the genocide which follows. That is hard but real.
You cannot pretend that there are a bunch of useful foreign troops just waiting for a Kerry presidency to help us make Iraq a functioning country. That is fantasy. Choose some variation of the first two, but don’t waste everybody’s time talking about the third. It isn’t real.
On troops: we need more of them there. Now!
Whether they are US troops (which seems unfair, given that we’ve got the vast majority of them there now) or nonUS troops (they’re all “foreign” to Iraq) doesn’t change that fact.
When will one of the candidates, either of the candidates admit that?
Via Sully:
Hal – “Well, this assumes it is possible to pull this off. It’s clear that at this point, we’ve lost the battle for hearts and minds. So the question is, is it actually possible to win that battle at all.”
That was pretty much my point. We don’t know whether it’s possible to pull it off. If it is possible, it will be through a combination of brilliant political/diplomatic/military maneuvering and sheer good luck. Hence my follow up point that if it’s not possible, we need to be figuring out which is the least bad path forward.
Sebastian, there’s a logical flaw in your argument.
Note that the ICP (as well as just about all others) explicitly includes the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of their party platform.
If we do not define some kind of schedule of withdrawal, we will end up pushing these folks into resistance. It’s not the same situation as post-WWII Europe, where the reason for maintaining US troops was to defend against the Soviet Union. There is no such strategic argument in Iraq!
Sebastian
Your argument gets really boring when you constantly read Kerry’s position as “pull out and pray”.
All because he would like to get troops home and had hoped (things are deteriorating quickly over there) to do get some home within four years (which magically coincides with one American presidential term).
Is Bush’s position that he would like our troops to die in Iraq? Doubtful.
“I’m not talking about withdrawing them, Kerry is.”
Come on, Sebastian.
I know it’s hard to respond to a charge when 95% of the people in the thread are throwing it at you in various wordings, but your position on this is completely incredible until you address this fact:
Bush’s position:
“We will finish the job in Iraq and then come home”
Your interpretation: We will finish the job in Iraq.
Kerry’s position:
“We will finish the job in Iraq and then come home”
Your interpretation: We will come home.
The position take by Bush’s critics, and the much more sensate one, is that they’re both saying the same thing but Bush has proven over and over again that his administration is completely incapable of accomplishing it, unless by it you mean painting schools for PR glam photos and driving really fast through Fallujah.
It’s entirely possible that Kerry will be unable to accomplish it as well, as the situation degenerates. But at the very worst he’ll fail more intelligently than Bush will fail. Is there any evidence drawn from any result in the last two years to disprove that belief?
Sidereal the candidates postitions are:
Bush: We will finish the job in Iraq and the Middle East and then come home.
Kerry: We need to get those troops home soon. I’ll do that soon by replacing them with (fantasy) foreign troops. I’ll spend lots of time talking about these (fantasy) foreign troops and see what happens.
Once again, and I’m repeating it because it is important, the situation is:
1) If you want to you can advocate having American soldiers die to try to make something out of Iraq. That is hard but real.
2) You can advocate leaving Iraq and washing our hands of the genocide which follows. That is hard but real.
You cannot pretend that there are a bunch of useful foreign troops just waiting for a Kerry presidency to help us make Iraq a functioning country. That is fantasy. Choose some variation of the first two, but don’t waste everybody’s time talking about the third. It isn’t real.
Kerry is still talking about the third. That isn’t real.
My views on the topic of how to get more troops are well known and not fantasy oriented. Since October of 2001 I have argued that we need to:
1) increase military pay to enlisted soldiers because the chances of being deployed in war have dramatically increased;
2) Authorize a 30 to 40% troop level increase.
3) Put some weapons programs which are not particularly suited to this war on hold to pay for some of that.
4) Cut farm subsidies to pay for that.
5) Increase taxes slightly to pay for that.
These steps may not be fantasy-oriented, but the notion that Bush is going to take them is. All of this could have been done before the war started. That is, we could have sent in enough forces and made tax and spending adjustments to cover the cost of the war. Bush did not do that. He did not come close. He refused.
He threatened to veto a bill that would have eliminated some of his tax cuts to pay for reconstruction. He fired Lindsey and Shinseki for speaking truthfully about the costs and troop requirements. And now, incredibly, you think he will do these things. And you accuse Kerry of having fantasies?
t isn’t real is you pretending that we are accomplishing anything in Iraq beyond recruitment of nationalists; terrorists; and fundamentalist religious ferver.
“Bush: We will finish the job in Iraq and the Middle East and then come home.”
What the f does that mean? “and the Middle East”? Oh crap like we aren’t proving to the ME already that we are stretched thin and that we aren’t as all powerful as they thought.
Edward, hilzoy, Jes, and others have made substantive, sourced comments that suggest your interpretation of Kerry’s position, which is the sum and total foundation for your line of argument, is at best forced, and at worst wilfully blind.
“Kerry is still talking about the third. That isn’t real.”
Cite, please.
Bush: We will finish the job in Iraq and the Middle East and then come home.
Kerry: We need to get those troops home soon. I’ll do that soon by replacing them with (fantasy) foreign troops. I’ll spend lots of time talking about these (fantasy) foreign troops and see what happens.
Bush: We will talk a lot about democracy and human rights and mom and apple pie, while refusing to acknowledge in any substantive way the errors we have made, refusing to hold accountable those who have made them, and continuing to build upon a track record of stunning incompetence.
“Finishing the job” will continue to be defined as pushing Iraqi governance towards artificial milestones which do not reflect the complex realities of the situation but sound good on TV and are easily and disingenuously spun as successes. This will continue until a few months after the election, at which point elections of dubious significance and legitimacy will be held, allowing “mission accomplished” to be again proclaimed. Our work in the Middle East thus “finished”, our troops can be brought home, allowing most of the American public to tune out the growing fustercluck that Iraq continues to become now that those close to us are no longer in danger.
This, I think, is a pretty accurate, if snarky summation of the Bush plan for Iraq. You are being fed a bait-and-switch, and you’re not going to be too happy with it by this time next year.
A few corrections:
This will continue until a few months after the election, at which point elections of dubious significance and legitimacy will be held
This should read “a few months after the November elections, at which pointn Iraqi elections”, for the sake of clarity.
And also in the interests of clarity, a bait-and-switch is a useful metaphor, if only a placeholder. What you are actually being fed is not suitable for mention on network television or Nickelodeon.
I for one did watch Kerry’s speech at the convention. What’s more, I can read it on his website. What he said in the speech was:
Now the sequence of events there is get the job done and bring our troops home. Those two clauses seem to me to carry equal weight, which, to my reading implies that bringing the troops home is part of getting the job done. But not all of it, as he wrote in this Op-Ed. Specifically:
I don’t see that as some sort of fantasy agenda. Seems pretty well thought out to me. Now it probably won’t work out exactly like that, but at least he’s talking about the situation at hand. Not everyone has to agree with Kerry’s plan, not everyone has to think that it will work, but it would be nice to get the substance of it correct before people start dismissing it.
Who in NATO will be in Iraq? Americans. That isn’t pulling out US troops anymore than the Social Security lock-box stores real money.
As for Kerry’s fantasy plan:
Note the interesting phrasing of the bolded text. He is theoretically responding to a question about removing US troops. In the bolded section he is either talking about replacing US troops with non-US troops (the fantasy) or he is talking about not removing US troops, but calling them something different under an international mandate.
Either the Kerry campaign is lying about removing the troops or engaging in the fantasy I outlined above. Neither outlook is helpful.
I also want to note this from what you quote crutan:
This suffers from the exact same problem as enforcing the NPT in Iran. The international community likes the PROCESS of creating treaties and ‘pledges’. But it refuses to engage in the ACTION of enforcing them.
Gaining pledges as Kerry outlines does nothing to get the US off the hook, because when the pledges are broken, the international community DOES NOT ACT. See the Sudan. See Iran and nuclear weapons. See North Korea and nuclear weapons. And then if you don’t get it, see the Sudan. And see the genocide in the Sudan again. That is the approach that Kerry wants for Iraq. That approach sucks.
That is the approach that Kerry wants for Iraq. That approach sucks.
Nothing sucks more than the current approach.
Again, Sebastian.
If our Sudan policy sucks, how is that Kerry’s fault, rather than Bush’s?
Crutan, thanks – I was looking up a transcript of Kerry’s acceptance speech rather than relying on my memory, but that’s the part I would have quoted.
For contrast, here’s Bush’s acceptance speech. As far as anyone can tell from that, he doesn’t have a plan in his head about fixing the problems in Iraq – indeed, he doesn’t even want to admit that Iraq is a problem.
Still wondering, therefore, why Sebastian is determined to prefer Bush over Kerry, aside from the obvious R over D. Fred Clark at Slacktivist makes the point briefly: “The lack of a final draft of a detailed clean up plan is not the same as being responsible for creating the mess while — even now, still — pretending it doesn’t even exist.”
Sebastian, I can’t quite figure it out. First you’re saying that Kerry’s focus is on removing US troops. Now you’re saying that Kerry’s not going to remove US troop. Neither one, apparently, looks good to you. How is Kerry’s thoughts that there should be more international involvement in Iraq a “fantasy plan”? It looks remarkably close to reality compared to Bush’s summary of the situation in Iraq as: Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong prime minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January.
I’m not sure how I feel about Bush describing Allawi as a “strong prime minister”, but I know how I feel about Bush describing the current situation in Iraq as “ongoing acts of violence”. If you want fantasy, Sebastian, vote for the man who isn’t prepared to acknowledge there’s a problem, let alone think about ways of solving it.
“If our Sudan policy sucks, how is that Kerry’s fault, rather than Bush’s?”
My comment is on the policy of the international community which Kerry want’s to rely upon. See if it makes more sense with that in mind.
As it is the US is the country which has called the problems in the Sudan genocide, while the EU denies it. It is the US that has called for sanctions while everyone else (France a couple of weeks ago and China as of yesterday) want to give the Sudan an undefined amount of ‘more time’. Furthermore the US is engaged in Iraq while I don’t see Europe’s vaunted forces tied down anywhere. If they are going to be free in Iraq for Kerry, surely they are free for the Sudan now.
There seem to be several options with regard to international involvement in Iraq. Kerry, to me, seems to want to pursue things through the normal international channels. These channels may not be perfect. In fact, they aren’t perfect, but they exist and are able to be modified. They have failed in the past, see Rwanda, they will undoubtedly fail in the future. I would seriously contest the claim that there is a perfect system. There exists one that is not quite as bad as the alternatives. (See Iraq now, for example)
Bush, at least in his initial approach to Iraq seemed satisfied to do things through channels. That was good. But then, when the inspectors didn’t find damning evidence, he threw that out. The US alienated old allies, and didn’t manage to make any new ones in the process. We told the world we’d do it alone, and we went in and gave it a try. Depending on how you see it, we either have failed in that effort, or a long way towards that failure.
I seriously don’t think that holding up the methods that we, the United States, have chosen to utilize in solving the problem Iraq posed as a model for the world to see is a good idea. I think that it is time we admit, publicly, that we have made a mistake. That we have overreached ourselves, and that we, frankly, need help. Contrition on an international scale is something I do not thing President Bush is capable of. I think it is something that a President Kerry would be capable of, and I think, further, that it might stand a snowball’s chance of succeeding.
Sebastian, you obviously disagree with me here. You seem to think that there is no way that the US could ever involve any other nations in Iraq. You despair at getting any international aid, and you claim that Kerry will remove our troops even if said international aid doesn’t materialize. I don’t see that in what I quoted above, and I don’t see it in what you quoted above. I do see a willingness to try in Kerry, and that, to me, is a good thing.
I don’t get it Sebastian. You worry much more about what you see as Kerry’s future plan than you do about Bush’s actual plan (or lack thereof). How could what Kerry might do if your (and seemingly yours alone) interpretation of his priorities were true possibly make matters worse? From everything I read, Kerry is much more willing to face and discuss the reality of what’s going on in Iraq. All the “stay the course” Bush has offered isn’t getting us anywhere.
“From everything I read, Kerry is much more willing to face and discuss the reality of what’s going on in Iraq.”
No he pretends to face it by pretending that significant international aid will be available when he calls. It will not, and if he were serious he would know that. Once again. Whose aid? Which country? What kind of aid? You won’t answer because you would have to admit the answer is “No one” “No One Not Currently Involved” and “Not much”. It is not reality to pretend that the solution to the problem of the US having troops in Iraq is “international aid”.
Sebastian: a few points about Kerry, fantasy, and reality.
First, as others have said, I think that in deciding whom to vote for one has to compare Bush and Kerry, not consider either in isolation, or measured against one’s own favored policies, if neither will actually adopt those policies. I cannot imagine how any statements Kerry has made stack up, fantasy-wise, against Bush’s entire prosecution of this war, or (for that matter) against his current insistence that things are basically OK now. If Iraq is your issue and fantasy is what you’re against, Kerry is your guy.
Second, here’s one aspect of what Kerry said that is not fantastical: convening a conference of Iraq’s neighbors. Bush has made it clear not only that he would like to see regime change in Iran and Syria, but that he might be willing to try to make it happen. It is even clearer that there are significant factions in his administration who would like us to do that. As long as that is true, those countries have every incentive to keep us bogged down in Iraq, and being right next door, they can make all sorts of mischief in order to realize this goal. And Bush does not have the credibility to assure them that this is not true. Only a new administration could credibly offer those assurances in exchange for noninterference. Now: you might not like the idea of offering them at all. Had we not gone into Iraq, we would not have had to bargain for these countries’ interference. But we did go into Iraq, we did convince these countries that they might be next, and so speculations about whether we like doing this in principle are, thanks to Bush, moot.
As others have noted, it isn’t completely clear that trying to get other countries’ troops in wouldn’t work. What is clear is that (a) Bush has profoundly alienated the allies we need, and also (b) that his prosecution of the war to date can give them no confidence at all that sending in troops wouldn’t be a complete disaster. So Bush will not get their help. The question is, can Kerry? I have no idea. However, I don’t think it’s obvious that he can’t. Based on every conversation I’ve had with Europeans, the European press I read, etc., my sense is that a lot of Europeans are very specifically angry with, and disgusted at, George W. Bush and his administration, as opposed to the United States in general; that they are also very worried by the damage that has been done to their relationships with us; and that they would like to do something to help put it right, but will never do this so long as Bush is in office.
If my read on this is at all accurate, they would have one motive to help, along with their desire for Iraq not to completely collapse. They have other motives not to, of course, and also I think there is some point at which they might think: look things have gone too far and gotten too thoroughly screwed up for it to be fixable. In that case, they wouldn’t join in. But I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that they won’t, and I certainly wouldn’t draw that conclusion from anything they do or don’t do in the way of cooperating with Bush.
As I said, I don’t mean to say that I believe they will be willing to help us in Iraq; just that I don’t think it’s a fantasy to imagine that they might. Certainly it’s less fantastic than Bush’s various assumptions about what would happen.
Whose aid? Which country? What kind of aid? You won’t answer because you would have to admit the answer is “No one” “No One Not Currently Involved” and “Not much”.
He says NATO, you say that means us. And we go round and round. We’re asked to believe in a dominoe effect with regard to democracy in the the Middle East, but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a potential dominoe effect of aid should the one irrefutable roadblock to that aid, GWB, be removed.
But that’s not what I was asking you. I’m asking why would Kerry’s plan, which whether or not it seems possible from this vantage point, seem less attractive than Bush’s plan which seems hopelessly doomed from this vantage point?
err…”stubbornly refuse to” was a bit over the top…please edit that to “don’t seem to”
“If my read on this is at all accurate, they would have one motive to help, along with their desire for Iraq not to completely collapse. They have other motives not to, of course, and also I think there is some point at which they might think: look things have gone too far and gotten too thoroughly screwed up for it to be fixable.”
So why don’t our European allies do something about the Sudan? Why are they pretending there is no genocide? The case there is MUCH clearer than Iraq. If they would have the power to help us in the much harder case of Iraq why are they so impotent in the Sudan? Why do they resist even the non-military measures in the Sudan?
“He says NATO, you say that means us. And we go round and round. We’re asked to believe in a dominoe effect with regard to democracy in the the Middle East, but you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a potential dominoe effect of aid should the one irrefutable roadblock to that aid, GWB, be removed.”
“You say that means us”. Whom do you say that means? I say the useful military aid you talk about does not exist (or rather that it exists in Russia and I seem to remember so very legitmate doubts about how they prosecute wars). Domino effects are irrelevant to non-existant aid. Your position is only logically defensible because you never bother to identify the country from which you believe aid will be forthcoming. See also my question on the Sudan above. See also our previous discussions on Afghanistan. If the international community refuses to deal with any of the easier cases (both in terms of international interest and difficulty of the job) it is a fantasy to believe that they will be up to the job on the harder case.
“I’m asking why would Kerry’s plan, which whether or not it seems possible from this vantage point, seem less attractive than Bush’s plan which seems hopelessly doomed from this vantage point?”
Kerry’s plan is attractive if you are willing to accept genocide in Iraq when we leave.
Kerry’s plan is attractive if you are willing to accept genocide in Iraq when we leave.
non sequitur city
Kerry has never, never, never, never, never, indicated he would pull out troops before the job was done. NEVER. You’re making that up.
Bush wants to “stay the course,” but “the course” is not working.
Isn’t it better to let someone who will garner the good will of the international community upon inauguration take a stab at this? How could that good will not help?
I know that’s more glib than the situation calls for, but really…Bush has tunnel vision…and he can’t see he’s digging a hole straight to Hell.
I’m not making it up, you are willfully blinding yourself to the fact that Kerry focuses on removing our troops, wastes time playing make-believe about nonexistant international aid (which you still cannot discuss) and tellingly draws a huge amount of his support from the completely peacenik branches of the Democratic party.
Once again. If international aid is oh so available in the amazingly hard case of Iraq, where the hell are the European troops in the much easier case of the Sudan? Don’t accuse me of making stuff up when you absolutely refuse to answer the question which indicates that the mirage of international help is just a trick of the light.
Sebastian
The peacenik branch of the democratic party obviously is not planning on supporting Bush so what’s your point about their support of Kerry?
Oh that’s right, you want them to vote for Nader.
About staying the course, I think Kerry nailed it today:
“George Bush is proud of the fact that not even failure can cause him to change his mind.”
Seb: here’s a secret. Kerry wants to get elected. Many voters want the dying to stop. As a politician who wants to get elected, Kerry will tell voters what they want to hear.
some want to hear “Stay the Course!” these will Bush voters.
others want to hear “I’ll Bring the Boys Home!” these will be Kerry voters.
Guess What? BOTH CANDIDATES ARE LYING!
i know, your illusions lie shattered around your feet like a plate glass window on the receiving end of a barry bonds blast. don’t worry, you’ll get over it.
the present course is unsustainable. even senior military officers admit that the current strategy (which appears to be Piss Off The Iraqis As Much As Possible Without Killing Any Leading Troublemakers) has to change.
abandoning the iraqis to their own fate will take years. there’ll be UN resolutions and donor conferences and summits on troop contributions and so forth.
What continues to surprise me is that the really bright people who post here actually believe that there is any such thing as an american policy. Here’s another secret: THE IRAQIS ALREADY LARGELY CONTROL THEIR OWN FATE. US troops have zero initiative left; the insurgents are driving the agenda.
How can we reverse this trend and start driving an agenda that serves our security goals? beats the hell out of me. One possibility would be to start taking an active role in developing voter rolls and creating secure zones for polling places. what else? if i were that smart i’d be advising the next president.
Francis
I have to say, the points that Sebastian makes are largely right, but meanwhile everyone can’t reconcile the fact that he agrees that Iraq is in trouble and yet won’t support Kerry over Bush.
Kerry isn’t offering a meaningful alternative. “He can’t do worse than Bush” is not an argument with substance. This is completely asinine when everyone admits that this is a ridiculously difficult situation.
Jonas Cord: This is completely asinine when everyone admits that this is a ridiculously difficult situation.
Except George W. Bush. Bush says everything is fine: there’s just some “ongoing acts of violence”. It really isn’t “completely asinine” to say that the man who acknowledges there’s a difficult situation in Iraq can’t do worse than the man who created that difficult situation and now won’t admit that it’s an issue.
Kerry isn’t offering a meaningful alternative.
To what?
Whether or not you supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place, there can be no disagreement among reasonable people that the occupation was shamefully mismanaged. Whether or not you think the invasion/occupation of Iraq could ever have been successful, there can be no disagreement among reasonable people that thus far, it hasn’t been.
Now there’s a choice between one man who says it’s a serious problem, but hasn’t provided a one-two-three solution to take place four months from now: and the man who is currently responsible for invading, occupying, and shamefully mismanaging Iraq – but who won’t acknowledge that there’s anything wrong, that he’s done anything wrong, or that there’s any need to provide any solution to the problem he created at all.
To me, if Iraq is the issue that matters to you, that’s an easy choice.
Whether or not you think the invasion/occupation of Iraq could ever have been successful, there can be no disagreement among reasonable people that thus far, it hasn’t been.
True. Yet I am of the perhaps unpopular belief, that while the occupation of Iraq could have been managed far better than it has been – the ability of the Government and Pentagon to manage it to a degree that would have been considered adequate by everyone here does not currently exist in any form. Remedying this situation is my concern; Kerry does not address it. He does act like more foreign troops that don’t exist and aid money that no one has will help solve the problem – meanwhile even if they did exist the problem would not be solved. So, yeah, I’m not impressed.
Now there’s a choice between one man who says it’s a serious problem…
Who cares? Rhetoric is cheap. The solutions to this – as everyone acknowledges – are hard.
…but hasn’t provided a one-two-three solution to take place four months from now
Something, anything, doesn’t need to be one-two-three. The “get the rest of the world to do it” plan is ridiculous.
…and the man who is currently responsible for invading, occupying, and shamefully mismanaging Iraq – but who won’t acknowledge that there’s anything wrong, that he’s done anything wrong, or that there’s any need to provide any solution to the problem he created at all.
The Bush administration is bad at communication, that much is true. They have only marginally acknowledged the difficulties. You seem to be more interested in seeing them embarass themselves by crying about how screwed up it all us and asking for everyone to forgive them for being wrong – that’s obviously not happening, wouldn’t happen under a Kerry administration either, and doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not Iraq succeeds or fails. Talk is cheap.
Remedying this situation is my concern;
Fine. Point out to me what plans Bush & Co have proposed to remedy this situation.
Who cares? Rhetoric is cheap. The solutions to this – as everyone acknowledges – are hard.
You keep saying “as everyone acknowledges” – except, as I’ve pointed out already, George W. Bush. Bush not only doesn’t acknowledge that the solutions are hard, he doesn’t acknowledge there’s a problem.
Something, anything, doesn’t need to be one-two-three.
Fine. Point out to me what “Something, anything” Bush & Co have proposed to remedy this situation.
The “get the rest of the world to do it” plan is ridiculous.
Find me the cite in which Kerry says his plan is “get the rest of the world to do it”. Please. Go ahead. If your argument is that saying the US needs more foreign involvement in Iraq is identical with “get the read of the world to do it”, what did you feel about the Bush & Co speeches back last year in which they said the US actually had large amounts of foreign involvement: or have you already forgotten the rhetoric of the “coalition of the willing”? Did you think that was ridiculous?
The Bush administration is bad at communication, that much is true.
Your argument is this paragraph appears to be that the Bush administration do have a solution for Iraq, they’re just very bad at explaining what it is.
You seem to be more interested in seeing them embarass themselves by crying about how screwed up it all us and asking for everyone to forgive them for being wrong
How about just joining in with what you claim “everyone acknowledges” – which is that the situation in Iraq is hard, that Bush & Co are responsible for getting the US into this situation, and – your requirement for Kerry – proposing “something, anything” to remedy the problem. So far, nothing.
Talk is cheap.
And yet, you’re requiring Kerry to explain what he’ll do in four months time (for a situation that may have changed explosively by then) while you’re not requiring Bush to explain what he’ll do now – because “the Bush administration is bad at communication”?
Why are you determined to reward failure?
Don’t accuse me of making stuff up when you absolutely refuse to answer the question which indicates that the mirage of international help is just a trick of the light.
I have answered it. You don’t like the answer, so you pretend I haven’t
Kerry says he’ll get aid from NATO. You keep insisting there is no NATO aid available. That’s funny though, because Bush went to Turkey to try and get aid from NATO in June.
Are you telling us that you know more about what’s available from NATO than both Bush and Kerry?
More importantly, if you’re gonna blast Kerry because he wants to get aid from NATO, but you don’t also blast Bush for wanting the same thing, where exactly is your argument?
Outrageously, you insist that the international community won’t even help more in Afghanistan, and yet NATO pledged to raise their troops in Afghanistan from 6,500 to 10,000. I’d say that’s a significant increase.
Finally, please point to where Kerry ever said he’d pull the troops out of Iraq BEFORE the job there was done. You keep insisting that’s what he said, but I can’t find the quote.
“I have answered it. You don’t like the answer, so you pretend I haven’t
Kerry says he’ll get aid from NATO. You keep insisting there is no NATO aid available. That’s funny though, because Bush went to Turkey to try and get aid from NATO in June.”
ARGH. Of course I don’t like the answer because it is like saying “I’ve answered you objection that the world is round by pointing to the fact that the sun rises from below. You just don’t like the answer,” or “I’ve responded to your contention that HIV causes AIDS by pointing out that some small percentage of people infected by the virus never get sick, oh and by the way have you heard about how effective raping virgins is at getting rid of the virus?”
Deployable NATO troops are for the most part US troops. Therefore a plan to ‘remove US troops from Iraq’ which is talking about amorphous ‘getting NATO involved measures’ doesn’t make sense. It would make sense in view of logistical support for US troops. It does not make sense in view of removing US troops from Iraq. That is the difference between the Bush plan and the Kerry plan. The Bush plan presupposes a huge commitment of US forces and tries to get NATO support to AUGMENT their effectiveness. Kerry is trying to suggest that the US will be able to draw down significant numbers of US troops by REPLACING them.
“Outrageously, you insist that the international community won’t even help more in Afghanistan, and yet NATO pledged to raise their troops in Afghanistan from 6,500 to 10,000. I’d say that’s a significant increase.”
I dealt with the French trying to block that increase in troops here.
Belmont Club dealth with the French trying to block it and other NATO involvement here.
Both have been posted on this site before.
Furthermore you are treating a 3,500 person increase–the most we could get out of NATO–as equivalent to asking for 80,000-150,000. They aren’t equivalent at all. Getting the 3,500 person increase was like squeezing a stone for blood, and that was for Afghanistan (the clear case) not Iraq. Furthermore the increase is for a very limited mission–dealing with the elections. With Iraq you are (or if you were realistic you ought to be) talking about a multi-year commitment.
Furthermore you have completely ignored my point on the Sudan. You claim that there are available European troops. You are completely wrong, but that is your claim. You also suggest that European countries would be willing to make significant contributions of military troops in Iraq. That suggests that troops are available. This is also completely wrong, but that is your claim. If these troops are available, and if European countries were interested in getting involved in messy situations in the Middle East, why does the genocide continue unfought in the Sudan? Do you pretend that the situation in Iraq is worse than the Sudan? Are the mythical European troops tied down in some conflict I haven’t heard about? Does genocide not rise to the level of importance for action in Europe? If not, why would they help in Iraq?
Sudan is waiting for any nation to send troops. Europe is not rising to the challenge no less slowly than we are.
It would make sense in view of logistical support for US troops. It does not make sense in view of removing US troops from Iraq.
US troops are having to perform all kinds of tasks they have no training for. ANY relief that Kerry can secure (which Bush cannot because he’s used up all his good will) will release US troops from those tasks.
Furthermore you are treating a 3,500 person increase–the most we could get out of NATO–as equivalent to asking for 80,000-150,000.
Nonsense. I’m treating it as evidence that your argument we can’t get additional help for Afghanistan, so why would we get any for Iraq is misinformed.
I personally don’t have the numbers of boots on the ground Europe could send to Iraq at my fingertips. I do believe, however, Kerry stands an infinitely greater chance of getting more aid (in any form) from Europe than does Bush.
The Bush plan presupposes a huge commitment of US forces and tries to get NATO support to AUGMENT their effectiveness.
This is as much of a fantasy given the current resistance as anything you wish to pin on Kerry. Even if this were a better plan than Kerry’s, Kerry would be better able to make it happen.
“Sudan is waiting for any nation to send troops. Europe is not rising to the challenge no less slowly than we are.”
And Europe has lots of troops tied down all over the world right? All those French troops occupying bases in Germany. All those German troops helping South Korea. That 50,000 person French contingent in Afghanistan. Oh and I haven’t even talked about all those troops from Europe who are in Iraq.
All the European troops who would be available for Iraq under Kerry are available for the Sudan now.
That number is quite close to zero.
“I personally don’t have the numbers of boots on the ground Europe could send to Iraq at my fingertips.”
Right. And you won’t listen to people who do know, like at the Belmont Club (I won’t appeal to my knowledge, because while I do know, an appeal to your own knowledge is bad form in an argument). But talk to someone in the military who knows about NATO. Ask them how many troops are likely to be available. Surely you know one or two knowledgable soldiers. And you pretend that wringing 3,500 troops into Afghanistan after MONTHS of begging indicates a willingness to commit tens of thousands of troops to the harder case of Iraq. You ignore the fact that the UN isn’t even willing to take the step of sanctions against the Sudan, much less consider supporting US troops to stop it, much less that troops from Europe would be available.
Sebastian,
Your argument hinges on your belief that Bush will do the right thing, either in Iraq or the Sudan, and Kerry can’t be trusted to do the right thing, am I right?
What evidence is there that Bush is doing the right thing, right now, in Iraq (I’ll concede we overthrew a tyrant, so after that)?
Maybe if we could establish that, we’d be able to find some common ground here.
Sebastian,
I did misunderstand your argument. Sorry. But I’m not sure it carries as much weight as you think.
Why aren’t other nations acting in the Sudan? Why aren’t we? Because nobody really gives a damn. That’s why. I simply do not believe that, even if there were no Iraq war, the US would be sending forces to Sudan. Do you seriously think that, (again assuming no Iraq war) Bush would stand up and say, “We need to send X thousand soldiers to Sudan to stop the genocide now taking place?”
So we go round and round on Iraq.
Will other countries help out? You seem to think that Kerry expects them to do so out of a general spirit of goodwill. That is a red herring. Of course nobody’s going to say, “Let’s send our guys to get killed so some of those nice Americans can go home.”
But this is not a fair characterization of what Kerry is saying. I think it is fair to say that he will try to convince other countries that it is in their interest to help out. I think it is fair to say he will try to reduce the level of anti-Americanism in Europe that makes it hard for leaders to cooperate with us. Make no mistake. This is a real problem, and the extent of it has been made much worse by Bush’s actions and attitudes, and the general tone of the “Freedom fries” jackasses.
It’s absolutely clear that the Bush plans, past and future, for Iraq, are fantasies. You practically admit this yourself. But that doesn’t justify mischaracterizing Kerry’s ideas as no better.
Jesurgislac,
And yet, you’re requiring Kerry to explain what he’ll do in four months time (for a situation that may have changed explosively by then) while you’re not requiring Bush to explain what he’ll do now – because “the Bush administration is bad at communication”?
Why are you determined to reward failure?
I’m requiring Kerry to explain what he’ll do because I want to know why I’m voting for him. Voting against Bush is fine, I’ve already done that once and likely again, but I’d like know why he’s going to do better. I’m not able to blindly get all enthusiastic about Kerry when he does not offer any policy prescriptions that seem realistic. In regards to Bush, at least I can ignore the meaningless rhetoric and examine what he has actually done and what he’s beginning to do.
I’m sorry, but I’m really tired of making excuses for my own candidate. I resent that I have to take the word of Clinton economists like Delong that, you know, I should just ignore Kerry’s demogoguery on trade because it’s just something he has to do to get elected. I’m supposed to believe that merely because Kerry isn’t Bush, he’ll be able to get our fellow debtor nation allies around to spend more money in Iraq. Or that they’ll have enough troops to relieve the burden when they clearly don’t.