The Accomplished Mission
Jeff Alworth
For bloggers who cut their teeth on the lead-up to the Iraq war, this is a pretty big anniversary. It was four years ago that Bush declared that "in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." This is rightly derided as a signature piece of evidence of Bush's incompetence and short-sightedness, and administration arrogance. But while most of the attention is now on the narrative of the war and the neocons' grave failures in foresight and execution, I am reminded of a darker meaning to the entire affair.
The best metaphor is Bush, striding across the USS Lincoln in a flight suit that seemed designed to highlight his--well, since this is a family blog, how 'bout we call it his "locus of courage." 
It was an audacious, Bruckheimer-like affair, with Bush standing in as the hero, playing dress-up in a flight suit. (Even then, when outright criticism of Bush was verboten in the media, this drew some critical comment.) Add the "Mission Accomplished" banner, which Bush later tried to deny had been his doing (a profile in courage--he blamed it on the soldiers), and you have two images that indelibly depict the Bush adminstration.
In terms of foreign policy, there was absolutely no reason to stage this spectacle. Rather, the intention was to use the war to hammer Democrats and capitalize on the political advantage the war offered. This had been the case for over a year, since just after 9/11, when administration officials darkly warned Democrats against any unpatriotic language. Flying the plane and the banner weren't necessary elements of our Iraq policy; they were critical elements of Karl Rove's effort to create a permanent Republican majority.
Here's Bush, playing the political card, a week after he declared victory in Iraq:
Some believe that democracy in the Middle East is unlikely, if not impossible. They argue that the people of the Middle East have little desire for freedom or self-government. These same arguments have been heard before in other times, about other people. After World War II, many doubted that Germany and Japan, with their histories of autocratic rule and aggressive armies, could ever function as free and peaceful societies. In the Cold War we were told that imperial communism was permanent and the Iron Curtain was there to stay.
In each of these cases -- in Germany, in Japan, in Eastern Europe and in Russia -- the skeptics doubted, then history replied. Every milestone of liberty over the last 60 years was declared impossible until the very moment it happened. The history of the modern world offers a lesson for the skeptics: do not bet against the success of freedom.
In this passage, Bush not only attacks Dems (the euphemism "some" has long been a proxy for "Democrats"), but links them to Nazi and Stalinist appeasers. (Ironically, it was the GOP who were isolationist at the time, but I digress.) Bush avoided the serious argument--that Iraq was a civil war waiting to happen--in favor of the straw man about peace in the Middle East. Time and time again, the GOP used this tactic to bully and shame Democrats into silence. Wars always stir passions, and Americans reliably rally around the President when we send troops abroad. But never has a President exploited our patriotism with such guile.
And as it happens, the GOP is still using the war as a domestic political tool. Just last week, Dick Cheney attacked Harry Reid as the political opportunist:
"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage."
It's impossible to know when the White House decided to use war as a political cudgel, but surely it wasn't long after they saw Bush's approval jump 30 points following 9/11. For the past five years, the White House has been transparent about its own use of the war for "political advantage." In late 2002, Andy Card made the mistake of speaking the truth on exactly this point. Asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to start promoting the invasion, he said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
There have always been swirling, shifting, tangled motivations for the invasion of Iraq. From oil to Mideast stability to WMD, proponents of the war had many reasons to think it was a good bet. But the blackest was that it would solidify the GOP's hold on power. For bloggers, this anniversary is especially resonant because it was the moment when Bush's grand scheme was laid bare. It's good to talk about the war and its costs and failures, but let's not forget the how the use of human life and American credibility abroad was inspired in large measure by the contemptible intention of grabbing political power.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 1, '07
From a military perspective the mission had been accomplished. The Iraqi military was defeated and Saddam ousted in record time.
It's the occupation that has become a dismal failure.
May 1, '07
How do we win a war in a country where being two-faced is a sign of strength?
OPB ran an Iraq documentary just last week where Iraqi soliders, working with our Army, helped find a small arms cache in a house near Baghdad. A few dozen man-made mines, IEDs, guns, etc,...
But, get this -- THE PBS CAMERA MAN SHOT TWO IRAQI SOLDIERS, TALKING IN ARABIC, SAYING THAT THE BIGGEST ARMS/BOMBS CACHE IS AT HIS IMAN's HOUSE.
Then, as the camera rolls, the other Iraqi solider says "Hey, that camera has a microphone on it!" and the Iraqi with the BIG MOUTH, walks away fast.
So, that in a nutshell, is why this war is lost, lost, lost... the Iraqis love our food and candy during the day, at night, they sharpen their knives, since they can't wait to cut off our heads.
And, if the White House stenographers (aka MSM) ever get a hold of that story, wow, but they are too busy dancing and drinking with Karl, W, Deadeye Dick and their best friends on Earth.
Yes, David Gregory, Tweety, and the guys really do love W personally, their kids go to school and party together, but the stenographers are not allowed to say it, so I just did for them since I worked with all of them on the Hill, back in the day.
4:00 p.m.
May 1, '07
Wow. What wonderfully bigoted, broad-brush you employ there. Got any like "they are canabal savages waiting to bite the heads off babies" in your ammo belt?
8:46 p.m.
May 1, '07
Jeff, I believe "Commander Codpiece" says it all, even on a family blog. Hey, William Shakespeare used the term in mixed company ;-)
4:20 a.m.
May 2, '07
Time and time again, the GOP used this tactic to bully and shame Democrats into silence. Wars always stir passions, and Americans reliably rally around the President when we send troops abroad.
Who was shamed into silence? I have many Democrat friends who opposed this war well before it started. We werem't "shamed into silence," we marched in the streets and put "No War in Iraq" bumper stickers on our cars.
"Rallied around the President?" Not this Democrat, and not a lot of others as well.
That there may have been a failure of leadership in the Democratic Party is one thing. But I think you paint your picture with too broad a brush, and ignore the rank and file voters and citizens --and many elected Democrats-- who have opposed this war from the beginning.
We don't need hand wringing or self-flagellation. We need to end this war.
8:09 a.m.
May 2, '07
Frank, I was with you from the start; I opposed this war and started a blog so I could denounce the administration's actions. And I regularly excoriated Tom Daschle. But I also recognize that very few leaders had the presence of mind to take tough stands in the face of enormous popular support for the war, administration lies (rememeber, they weren't sharing a lot of the intel with Congress, either) and threats, and their own emotional confusion about what the terror threat actually meant.
So often, liberals looking back in time see moral equivalence between slightly weak-willed Democrats who were trying to be honest stewards of the public good and an ideologically-driven White House bent on misleading those same Democrats. Let's level proportional judgment.
May 2, '07
Your right, Jeff. I think Frank is suffering from a little tunnel vision. By far the vast majority of your fellow citizens, Frank, (we're talking the entire country, not just in Portland) supported this war from the beginning.
It seems many anti-war folks have blinders on when it comes to the history of how we ended up in Iraq. People opposed to this war from the beginning were a tiny minority. Maybe not in Portland, but just about everywhere else.
Make no mistake, the vast majority of Ameriancs wanted this war. That is the true context of how we went to war.
May 2, '07
The parallel with postwar Germany and Japan breaks down because the people of those countries at least had a strong sense of national identity and a tradition of working together for a common purpose. Iraq OTOH is an artificial "nation" cobbled together after WWI out of various tribes and clans and religious factions, most of whom hate each other's guts.
"Make no mistake, the vast majority of Ameriancs wanted this war. That is the true context of how we went to war."
The "true context of how we went to war" is that the American people and Congress were fed a pack of bareassed lies by Smirky, Cheney, Rumdum, Powell, Condi et al. about "weapons of mass destruction" that did not exist -- and that the administration KNEW did not exist -- as well as lies designed to draw a bogus connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Cheney is still telling the second type of lie.
9:05 a.m.
May 2, '07
Frank is suffering from a little tunnel vision
It helps get me through the night?
Americans didn't want this war, they wanted a war to rid the world of an evil dictator, who had WMDs, and whose people would lavish us with thanks, blah, blah, blah.
Th fact is, we've been at war in Iraq for far longer than this episode, as we enforced a no-fly zone, bombing them from the air and creating a Kurdish enclave, if not a separate state altogether. One of Iraq's future civil wars, if not Turkey's as well.
What galls me, though, is even now, even after the American people have made clear they want us out, I get an email from Nancy Pelosi yesterday --well, not a personal one-- ripping the president (fine) but bragging how the Democratic Congress has given Bush every penny he asked for to continue the war. (Not so fine with me.) It's not ending ending the war, it's about posturing. And oh, lord knows, we can't do anything until 2008 --or is that 2009?-- and so the war grinds on, more kids die, more money gets pissed away...and, I'm afraid, the American people start thinking "Democrats? Not so different."
The American people have been voting for years by staying away from the voting booths. Unless we give them an alternative vision, and better leadership, I'm afraid they will continue to do so.
May 2, '07
The war costs are identical to funds available in the Social Security Trust Fund; none of this was about Sadam and WMDs, it was about destroying an "entitlement" program. Junior is simply the facilitator of domestic terrorist Grover G. Norquist.
10:28 a.m.
May 2, '07
From Nancy Pelosi, yesterday:
Congress has responded to the will of the American people...House and Senate Democrats offered a plan for change in Iraq that gave the President every penney he requested for soldiers on the ground and more. But it also gave him something he's tried to avoid: accountability.
That "every penny" was bolded in the original. How is that "the will of the Amrican people." Pelosi writes:
The President isn't listening to the American people's call to end this disastrous war.
Are the American people asking for "accountability" or are they asking for an end to the war. Better yet, what are we here who oppose this damnable war looking for?
Is a difficult place to be, I think, to denounce the war as a disaster, its crafters charlatans and frauds, but we will continue to give them "every penny" they ask for to continue it.
I'd love to see Democratic Congressional leadership stick to their guns and really vote to end the war. "Benchmarks" is just a load of crappola. And the spectre of the all-powerful George Bush who a Democratic Congress can't do anything about is absurd.
May 2, '07
Frank,
You are completely right about us being at war with Iraq for years. Nobody (that means the UN) was willing to completely lift sanctions. Everyone was happy to work around the sanctions to get their hands on Iraq's oil. I'll give you that.
I have said this before and I'll say it again. Your stance on us getting out is a little flawed. Yes the public wants us to get out. They want a phased drawback. That's what the Dems in Congress want as well. I don't see us pulling out when Bush is in office because A-He can still keep troops in action whether Congress denies him the money or not and I think he's willing to do that to make Dems look bad and B-There is no way Dems in Congress will deny troops bullet money in a combat zone. It's political suicide. All the Dems can do right now is exactly what they are doing which is trying to make the President come to some kind of compromise where he agrees to quit escalating the war and make him finally force the corrupt Iraqi govt. stand up for themselves. You can cry about it all you want but the fact remains the President is the Commander in Chief and has the option to send troops anywhere he wants and there is little Congress can do about it but deny him the money. When its 200,000 troops that a previous Congress approved being there it takes time to make sweeping changes.
May 2, '07
Hey Lestatdelc.
As a former reporter for CNN and USA Today, I have covered horrible crimes all across the globe... in D.C. I saw way too many young men... dead in the street... Nikes up... as they say. No names, no clues, just a young dead black man. And, nobody saw a thing, Lesty! Funny, huh?
Anyways, I've written about hundreds of horrible crimes in the USA... but it is the Iraqis who use power tools like they were an art form... drilling big bloody holes in men's skulls... and other sensitive places... while the victim is still alive... in handcuffs.. in a dark, dirty, damp basement outside Baghdad. Makes Saddam look like a piker!
So, Lesty, as T.S. Lawrence wrote, if you ever get badly wounded in Afghanistan or the Middle East... roll over onto your sword... and... KILL YOURSELF FAST... because those filthy young men with their dirty old power drills can hurt... like... a lot.
May 2, '07
Sid...
Gosh I wonder where they learned all that torture stuff and how not to get caught. It couldn't have been because a guy like John Negroponte spent a lot of time there could it?
May 2, '07
If the dems had ANY cahones, they would simply go ahead and stop the funding. Why not, this is what you campaigned on, now give us the goods. However, if you want to prosecute a war, you cant do it from the Oregon Senate (idiots), or from Congress (Nancy), so run for President and be Commander in Chief.
1:49 p.m.
May 2, '07
There is no way Dems in Congress will deny troops bullet money in a combat zone. It's political suicide.
$138 billion, if that's the latest number, is an awful lot of bullets, don'tcha think?
And, my god, take a stand that could be "political suicide?" How much nobler to vote to keep sending youngsters to a pointless death, a real one, in a war that is counterproductive, stupid, and making matters worse every day we are there. Gradual withdrawl to what end? What's the game plan? There's no light of the end of this tunnel. We are an unwanted occupation army, and even Saudi potentates are finally saying "enough already."
Congress cut off funds for the Vietnam War. And Nixon brought the troops home. Or maybe we should still be there too... maybe another 40,000 or so like we kept in Korea for so long. (Oh, wait...we've still got troops there!)
I was born in 1951 and we've been at war, somewhere, every year I've been alive. And not one --not one-- has been declared, which is the solemn responsibility and duty of Congress. We either respect the Constitutional separation of powers or we don't. Congress wither does its job, or doesn't. I'm disappointed to see such weakness and timidity in the face of such a national crisis and national disgrace.
I'm no Naderite, and I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. As I swallowed hard and voted for Clinton, Gore and Kerry. I still have my Kerry poster in the window. But I'd sure like to see more leadership, which sometimes means standing out in front of the crowd, not just tailing behind them. I think we tend to underestimate the basic decency, honesty and anti-war values of our citizens...even beyond the boundaries of the People's Republic of Portland.
May 2, '07
Americans were sold a pack of lies, no doubt, but that doesn't mean most weren't more than willing buyers.
Politics is a "buyer beware" market if there ever was one.
Given our history, especially our recent history of military action, it is almost negligent for citizens not to view without a giant dose of skepticism any government statements about why we must invade another country.
That's what was so frightening about watching this country march so enthusiastically off to war on such a thin case. But let's not pretend the Bush administration led this country to war against the will of The People. That's simply not the case.
May 2, '07
Garrett,
The Guardian quoted one of his old bosses as saying Negroponte couldn't find his own ass with "a map, compass and a shovel" and from what I hear, that's about right.
The Sunnis and Shia have been slaughtering each other for eight-ten centuries now and need no help from us in spreading mass carnage.
None.
5:26 p.m.
May 2, '07
let's not pretend the Bush administration led this country to war against the will of The People. That's simply not the case
Funny, but I don't remember anybody asking me? How have you determined the Will of The People...read a poll in the papers?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. You're trying to deflect criticism from where it belongs...the gutless politicians who should've known better and won't take a step without a consultant's benediction, and a media that showed it had even less guts, and a dimished sense of integrity than anyone could've believed.
May 3, '07
I just came back from Iraq three months ago. Been there twice now, 12 months each time. Might go back this summer, we'll see about that. Yeah, I'd much rather be here, but I'd go back there in a flash if asked. Those people need us man, and if you've been there you know what I mean. But if you see what's on the news you don't know 1/10th the story.
The good guys over there way outnumber the bad guys, and the good guys are some really good people who need our help. If I die over there I know our society will take care of my family. They can have a good life without me. But over there, if mommy or daddy dies, the kids are hopeless. They're better off dead from the way they'll live life. If we leave its gonna stay like that and I just ain't willing to accept that.
I believe much is expected of those to whom much is given. Americans have a lot and we have an opportunity to give something good to these people. So why do you say no? Is it the money? It stings, but we can afford it. Is it the lives? I'm telling you right now, I'd give my life for it and most the soldiers I know would too. So what is it, really? Cause you don't like Bush and he's in charge? That's what it seems like to us over there.
And here's the other thing I know for a fact: we'd be outta there by now if the Democrats would just say "ya, we won the war, it's over now let's go home" instead of Bush failed, the troops failed, the troops are murderers, torturers and all other kind of deamons. And y'all know that too, but you (or some of you) keep spittin in our faces while we're over there covered in sand and smoke. So ask yourself; why are you really against the war other than your own silly pride?
12:39 a.m.
May 3, '07
And y'all know that too, but you (or some of you) keep spittin in our faces while we're over there covered in sand and smoke. So ask yourself; why are you really against the war other than your own silly pride?
I don't know anyone who's spit in anyone's face, and the issue isn't about intentions, it's about what we're realistically accomplishing...for our interests and and for the people of Iraq. Our occupation of that country is causing nothing but harm. It has nothing to do with "pride" and everything to do with working for positive outcomes.
May 3, '07
Malcolm,
I don't think anyone is saying the troops failed. You guys won. You whooped ass. Bush failed in his occupation plan. The Army isn't trained to be a police force and Bush listened to Rummy and Cheney who told him to disband the Iraqi Army rather than listen to his counterparts who strongly advised against it. They also didn't listen to the advice of military leaders who said the occupation of Iraq would take almost twice the amount of soldiers there. I personally am very nervous about our pulling out because of the slaughter I think is going to happen there when we leave and I get the feeling it might make Darfur look like a petting zoo. At some point the Iraqis have to stand up for themselves eventually. So my whole point is that I don't think anyone thinks the military failed. I think the civilian leadership failed and I think its high time someone developed a strategy to get our troops out of the middle of a civil war. I'm also sick of paying for the occupation of Iraq that is only making contractors from the US rich.
May 3, '07
Well, Malcolm, you started off good but then you launched into some pretty ignorant drivel. I mean seriously, if you believe half of tat crap about "it's all the Democrat's fault" I seriously question whether you should be allowed a gun in your hand.
Americans have a lot and we have an opportunity to give something good to these people.
Boy, and we sure have done that haven't we. It's all good in Iraq.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, Malcolm.
9:18 a.m.
May 3, '07
Malcolm, I don't know if your comment was directed to my post or the comments on the blog, but I'll answer from my side.
What I wrote about was a deceitful political campaign by the White House to use the war to punish political rivals. This criticism has nothing to do with the war. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has done a good job of casting any critique of its politics as an unpatriotic attack on the troops. The equation, if you disagree with the way the war has been sold, is a lose-lose; either you accept Bush's arguments without disagreement or you are a supporter of terror. It's no wonder that Dems are more than a little pissed off: for four years we've been called traitors. Not cool.
I also think your comment about what the Democrats are saying is grossly inaccurate ("And here's the other thing I know for a fact: we'd be outta there by now if the Democrats would just say "ya, we won the war, it's over now let's go home" instead of Bush failed, the troops failed, the troops are murderers, torturers and all other kind of deamons.")
While you'll find some fringe antiwar liberals saying that, I don't think you can find a single example of an elected Democrat who has ever said any of this. It is certainly not the majority view or what has been driving politics. The only people who have said what you accuse the Dems of saying are the right wingings like Hannity and Limbaugh, who have been accusing the Dems of traitorous acts since 9/11--not because they actually have been unpatriotic, but because it's an easy way to silence critics.
Finally, on the Iraqis. I'd love to have the conversation about what we should do, because, like you, I agree that we owe something to the country we invaded. But the White House has been absolutist in its refusal to negotiate in the slightest on strategy. You criticize Dems for wanting to pull out early, but given that their only other choice is to grant Bush absolute freedom in conducting the war, they've really got no other choice.
We are often (rightly) asked to think of the war from the troops' perspective. Let me ask you to put yourself in my position. I disagree with the conduct of the war. I believe we need to either adopt Biden's three-state strategy or appeal to the international community to pitch in on reconstruction (a diplomatic act that would require Bush to go back to the UN, hat in hand, and admit his many mistakes of judgment and execution). Given the political realities I'm confronted with, what possible way can I join the discussion without being called a traitor or an arrogant, spiteful idiot (your comment about "silly pride")?
9:20 a.m.
May 3, '07
Pat, show Malcolm some respect. We can disagree and remain civil. He of all people has earned the right to be treated the way Dems wish the GOP would treat us.
May 3, '07
I like how y'all know so much about Iraq. Ever been there? Do you really think the TV news tells you everything about that place?
May 3, '07
Frank, if you really believe that most Americans didn't want this war in March 2003, you must have the alzheimers. And yes, there were numerous polls at the time. I do this thing called readin. You should try it some time. And the "no one asked me" is a response I'd expect from a three year old.
May 3, '07
Jeff, you'll probably disagree but I think it's hard for you to credibly join the discussion when your commitment to victory is in doubt. I mean really, how bad do you wanna win this thing? I mean, I'd give my life to win this thing. Would you? Seems to me the democrats will complain about money, lives and politics before they do about strategy. And that makes me doubt the commitment to the mission.
The three state idea is interesting but it won't happen unless it's what the Iraqis want. These people do actually have pride in their country. The violence is bad guys are a small minority of the population. Most of the bad guys are just trying to negotiate for themselves too, and I think we should work something out with them. Once we get a few of the more mainstream sunni/shia groups on our side it will be a lot easier to kick out the true extremists like the al qaeda elements or the iranian agents. These guys rat each other out all the time and tell us who's affiliated with al qaeda in that town or who's been talking to the iranians.
Oh and by the way, I did hear some very insulting comments from Kerry on more than one occaision and that Murtha guy too.
May 3, '07
Here's a civil question for you Malcolm: Where does the U.S. go next? Africa? Plenty of oppression there to choose from. Saudi Arabia? LOTS of oppression there, too (and it's where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from). Iran? Syria? Pakistan? (That country's leader took over in a military coup). India has nukes. Better invade. South America? No shortage of evil there. Eastern Europe? They've got bad guys, too. Should we invade China to free its political prisoners? They're certainly in need of help. Should we help the Cehechens free themselves from Russian oppression, or should we help the Russians defeat the Chechens.
Maybe you could put together a short invasion list so we can get busy ridding the world of evil right away.
Circling back to the main point of Jeff's post: The invasion of Iraq was not sold as a war of choice intended to help the Iraqi people. It was sold as an absolutely necessary act of self-defense. That's a claim that's been blown out of the water repeatedly. Most recently by the former head of the CIA.
This country never had a chance to debate the wisdom or neccessity of trying to "democratize" Iraq by invading and occupying it. Instead the public was sold a war that disengenuosly linked Saddam to 9/11 and hyped the threat that he posed to the rest of the world.
Do we have a responsibility to clean up the mess that's there now, of course we do. But let's not pretend that's why the majority of citizens of this country supported the war in the first place. They supported it because they were sold a bill of goods about Saddam being an imminent threat. In reality, the guy couldn't even keep his TV stations running more than a couple hours a day.
If we should have learned just one thing from our recent history, it's that you NEVER go to war on the wings of a lie. That's what Bush and crew did. Certainly the people in the Armed forces deserve better than that.
Freedom isn't free. Citizens have a duty to pay attention. Democracy cannot survive without it.
10:52 a.m.
May 3, '07
What is "this thing?" What's to be won? It's a civil war that we're not a part of, so we can't win that. We don't want to hold the territory as a colony of the US, so we can't win that. Terror is not an enemy, so we can't win that. We no longer have real control over the governmental affairs of the state, so we can't win a stable democracy either. Oh, and we can't forget that there were no WMD to destroy, so there goes that victory too.
Protecting innocent civilians from harm and building democracy are both open-ended committments, and neither are the proper purview of the US military. Of COURSE there is no committment to victory, because there is no victory to be won.
May 3, '07
Pat,
The cost of freedom is a buck five.
Saw it on South Park.
May 3, '07
And here's the other thing I know for a fact: we'd be outta there by now if the Democrats would just say "ya, we won the war, it's over now let's go home" instead of Bush failed, the troops failed, the troops are murderers, torturers and all other kind of deamons. I haven't heard anyone outside the Bush administration blaming the troops for failure in Iraq. I mean, c'mon. "The troops" (as far as I know) have won every battle, achieved every military objective that's been asked of them, just piled up success after success. (Maybe I'm wrong. If our troops were ever beaten in Iraq, please point out to me someplace where they lost.)
So if the troops have been racking up success after success, and we still can't seem to "win" (whatever "win" means these days), is that the fault of the troops? Or the civilian "strategists" who are running this war? Seriously: who is blaming "the troops" for this mess? All the criticism I've been hearing has been focused on the administration's incompetent "leadership."
But Malcolm has a good point. Why not declare victory and get out? On March 22, 2003, Bush declared his (public) reasons for starting this war: "Our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Well, mission accomplished. (1) No WMDs in Iraq. (2) Saddam is dead. (3) Iraq has an elected government.
Our troops have achieved everything Bush said they were going there to do. So call it a victory and call it a day.
3:02 p.m.
May 3, '07
Jeff, you'll probably disagree but I think it's hard for you to credibly join the discussion when your commitment to victory is in doubt. I mean really, how bad do you wanna win this thing? I mean, I'd give my life to win this thing. Would you?
Malcolm, being willing to die for a cause and setting a wise strategy aren't the same thing. Sometimes it's the unwillingness to die for a cause that makes it wise. My own willingness to die or kill isn't actually germaine to the question of our strategy. If that were the only criteria, we'd quickly slide into violent imperialism.
There's no space to discuss foreign policy when the outcome is already defined. Most Democrats are unwilling to accept the defintion of "win." I'd actually be interested to know what you think that means, but what it means for the Bush administration is whatever's politically expedient at the time. Go back over the past five years and read what Bush has described as "victory." Most of the earlier definitions are flatly unachievable now.
Finally, while you may have felt insulted by Democrats (I can't speak to your personal experience), that doesn't mean any Democrat has said "the troops failed, the troops are murderers, torturers and all other kind of deamons" as you asserted. You made the claim; I'd like to hear it retracted or backed up.
May 3, '07
Too many people here still believe in the mainstream media. The goal was and is to privatize Iraq's resources in a manner that is friendly to western energy companies and to establish a permanent military presence. As Dems talk of "benchmarks" for "Iraqis to stand up" and Republicans talk of "winning" so we can "go home," the construction of permanent military bases continues unabated. Why don't the Dems put a clause in the spending bill that not only requires a timeline, but demands that construction of permanent military bases in Iraq cease, since both parties ostensibly want to see us "win," the Iraqis "take over," and American troops "come home?" That question defies a logical answer.
So let's cut through the BS and talk about things outside what is framed for public consumption. Neither side wants to see (1) a Fall of Saigon type of bloodbath, whether it's Shiite or Sunni, because Saudi Arabia will face revolt if Sunnis are slaughtered and Jordan won't be able to control it's Shia population if that sect is slaughtered. (2) Israel has formed alliances with Kurds, but Turkey is a necessary ally of the US. (3) Pro-Israel lobbies are extremely powerful in the US and UK and don't want to see a power vacuum that is filled by hostile interests. (4) A lot of powerful energy companies and related lobbyists have a lot of money riding on the Neocons' power-drunk trip to the roulette table.
The Gordian knott of alliances and empirical tentacles and political special interests currently wound up in the Middle East is now similar to what caused the outbreak of World War I. If the lights go out this time, it will be dark indeed. This isn't the American people's war. While our treasure and youth are wasted overseas, the threat is used to attack the very foundation of nation--our Constitution, civil liberties, and stable currency valuation--at home. The destruction of our fundamental principals of government (free speech, free press, right to jury trial, etc) is far more devastating to the safety of Americans than any frontal terrorist attack or instability in the Middle East.
5:52 a.m.
May 4, '07
And the "no one asked me" is a response I'd expect from a three year old.
Anybody ask YOU, Pat, if you wanted to go to war in Iraq? Just curious. I asked my wife over dinner, and she said nobody asked her. I wonder of anybody here at Blue Oregon got asked...can we see a show of hands?
I may have "the alzheimers" as you suggest, but I also have to wonder how you've managed to channel "The Will of The People?" Oh, you read it in the Oregonian? Well that's definitive then I guess. Or was it in the "All the News" New York Times?
From the same folks who brought you the imminent threat of WMDs, the polls that say we Americans want to go to war. Connect the dots, dude.
At any rate, I was saying that some Americans wanted the war fantasy we were marketed, not the war reality that we got. And w-a-y too many smarter-than-that politicians sold us out by sticking their fingers in the air in search of the political winds, instead of using their brains, and actually exercising their ethics. Even good Democrats like to bring home juicy war spoils --and defense contracts-- to their constituents too.
Now that even Hillary has called for actually revisiting Congressional responsibility for the war's authorization, can we please stop wringing our hands about how there's nothing we can do to end this war madness?
May 4, '07
I may have "the alzheimers" as you suggest, but I also have to wonder how you've managed to channel "The Will of The People?" Oh, you read it in the Oregonian? Well that's definitive then I guess. Or was it in the "All the News" New York Times?
From the same folks who brought you the imminent threat of WMDs, the polls that say we Americans want to go to war. Connect the dots, dude
Conspiracy theories don't work for me. When was the last time you made a trip to the South? You should mosey on down to Georgia or Alabama one of these days and go to any grocery store parking lot and tell me what percentage of cars have stickers that support or do not support this war. I was in Arkansas a few months ago and I'd say that their feelings differ a bit from Oregonians about the war and their level of support.
10:07 a.m.
May 5, '07
Conspiracy theories don't work for me.
Can't speak for Frank, but I agree with you completely. However, this ain't about "theories". It's about an actual conspiracy that has been documented exhaustively over the past six years.
Refusing to examine mountains of evidence and first person reports in favor of beliving the story that you wish to be true reminds me of Colbert's comment regarding Bush's views on foregn policy:
He believes the same thing on Wednesday tha he believed on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday".
This is not reason. It's willful blind faith, and the most single most dangerous trait in a leader or a citizen.
9:09 a.m.
May 6, '07
When was the last time you made a trip to the South? You should mosey on down to Georgia or Alabama one of these days and go to any grocery store parking lot and tell me what percentage of cars have stickers that support or do not support this war.
I was in Florida two weeks ago, visiting my Dad. I believe that's still considered the South.
Hanging out in Cocoa Beach, right by Patrick Air Force Base, you can't help notice the "Support the Troops" yellow-ribbon magnetized bumper stickers...except people are writing on them "bring them home."
I'm not especially into conspiracy theories, but there's a magazine I came across in the lounge in Newark Airport, coming home. Washington Life with page after page of the tuxedoed class photographed at their Balls and Fundraisers. And there's Charlie Rose, page 24, having a giggle with Karl Rove.
Who you wake up in bed with in the morning is going to impact the way you view --and report-- the news. And, geez, how quickly we forget how "polls" determining and reporting the "Will of The People" are paid for and manipulated. Don't mistake me for an apologist for voter apathy and citizen disinterest. But, please, let's hold our "leaders" accountable for where they lead us.
9:20 a.m.
May 6, '07
When was the last time you made a trip to the South?
Actually (this question has really ticked me off with its presumption)...I was in the lower 9th ward of New Orleans last August. Driving through the unimaginable devastation, that we still can't seem to recognize is still out there...
The bumper sticker --and T-shirt-- of the day is: "Make Levees, Not War"
<hr/>