Kevin Drum pithily summarizes some thoughts from Tapped about the Democrats' post-election dilemma over Iraq:
Ackerman: If Democrats press too hard on withdrawal from Iraq, the end result will probably be a rerun of the Vietnam myth: we could have won in Iraq, but feckless liberals snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and precipitated a national humiliation. "Over the next fifteen years, this becomes accepted wisdom. A younger generation of liberals, tired of being bludgeoned with the charge, more or less accepts it themselves. Another Republican gets elected, and sets to work combating Iraq Fatigue. We get another war."
Farley: Word. Things might turn out a little better this time since Iraq is a purely Republican war, but maybe not. After all, "Millions of moderate to conservative Americans who had come to support a withdrawal from Vietnam by 1972 found it very easy to convince themselves, by 1980, that the war had been a noble struggle undermined by the malfeasance of counter-culture activists and Congressional Democrats."
Lemieux: Bollocks. "The problem is, the blame-the-war's-opponents narrative will be trotted out and may hold no matter what the Democrats do." Besides, Congress isn't going to defund the war anyway, so this is all just a round of wankerism.
Drum concludes:
The question here isn't so much about withdrawal, which I believe Ackerman, Farley, and Lemieux all support, but about how to handle withdrawal politically in order to minimize damage to the Democratic Party.
That our side is still fretting about this shows that not enough people read my posts how difficult the problem is, and it's why I've been so insistent on the need for us to develop a clearer, more consistent message on Iraq. The crux of the problem is that it’s not just about whether Democrats can force a withdrawal; it’s about why we’re withdrawing.
Given a divided government for the next two years, we're locked in a battle of narratives with the Republicans. Dubya isn't insane (at least not entirely) — he (or Cheney or Rove, or whoever) is making a calculated gamble that the long-term benefit of sticking with the "resolve" narrative will overcome the short-term unpopularity of escalating the war… and that whatever fuss they might raise, Democrats won't be able to make them pay a permanent price for it.
So the absence of an effective Democratic narrative isn't just an abstract issue. At this point, it's actually enabling the Bushites to lengthen the war. Dubya and whoever's whispering in his ear think that if they just stay the political course, Democrats will take them off the hook by forcing a withdrawal and taking the blame — repeating their Vietnam experience just as reliably as Charlie Brown running to kick the football before Lucy pulls it away.
The way to change things, as I've written incessantly here, is to upend the tough-versus-weak GOP frame in favor of reality/results versus fantasy and false promises. If Democrats make clear that their actions are based on the best way to defend the country, responding to the real situation in Iraq, and our moral duty to our troops — and the Powell doctrine is just sitting there waiting for Dems to adopt it, as tangible proof — and that Dubya's stance is not really resolve but the weakness of someone too insecure and afraid to admit a mistake, they'll have a strong rhetorical base on which to resist the inevitable attempts at revisionism.
Even better, if the chorus of ridicule over Bush's cowardly posturing from a strong, morally based Democratic party is effective enough, we may even browbeat the loser into changing course in Iraq. Why should we be content with just playing the role that Republicans want us to play?
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Your moment of Zed.
They can also point out that most of the ’security measures’ of the last five years are more cosmetic than anything else. (I think that, except for the real believers in Bush, everyone else has figured it out by now. Pointing it out won’t be a big surprise.)
Swopa in the lake!
But -but – but the President says we can just shop our way through this war…
Good points Swopa.
We need to stick this miserable failure to the Republicans like shit on a blanket.
They need to smell like cat piss EVERY time they try to frame this bullshit.
I posted this downstairs but man it fits on this thread;
this is too good to not interupt, sorry for ot
fierce supporter of bush for two terms and for the war, scarborough is calling for the impeachement of bush at the end of this clip
http://movies.crooksandliars.c…..etLost.wmv
now, he doesn’t come out and say it, but man oh man is he asking for someone else to say it
watch this clip from c&l, scarborough is BRUTAL, it’s as if he’s campaigning to become a democrat
must watch that clip beginning to end, you’re gonna see scarborough try to get someone to say the president needs to be impeached
good stuff
[Mod Note; Fixed C&L link above. Also available at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/12/21/12969/ ]
Is there any possible chance that our country can simply do the right thing, pack up, and go home?
Is our political discourse so poisoned by careerism and fear that we can no longer do anything worth doing?
The crux of the biscuit is the catastrophe
LimaBN @ 6
because while we sit here and argue the pros and cons of the optimum political approach for the Dems, more of our soldiers will die. Get our military out now. Surge? Kiss my ass, commander bunnypants. TSF — where are you?
Bush will send in new contingents of targets, count on it, absolutely count on it. Just hope they get outfitted with our best rose petal-proof vests.
_
I agree with everything you say, I am just not sure how to do it, because we know the press won’t allow our narrative any space. I used to laugh at my wingnut friends who claimed we could have won Vietnam. I’m not laughing anymore – crying more like.
Jon Stewart of TDS:
Since 7 out of 10 Americans want us out of Iraq by 2008, isn’t that a good reason why we should withdraw? Sounds like a mandate to me.
Bustednuckles @ 1
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gm…..zen_1.html
I remember Viet Nam. The civilian military leadership and most of the Generals knew that Viet Nam was a lost cause. However, to “save face,” they continued the war for YEARS, resulting in the deaths of 10’s of thousands of brave young Americans. And to what end? Had we left when it was determined that our continued presence was counterproductive, we might have actually SAVED the lives of countless Vietnamese and untold thousands of Americans. All waiting did then (and will do now) is delay what is apparently (to all but a few Bush loyalists) inevitable. A civil war and the deaths of thousands of Iraqis. That is the sad consequence of OUR “war of choice.” The question is: is it worth the deaths of 2 or 3 thousand more Americans to “save face” for Bush? Will we NEVER learn? Bush’s “face” is not worth the death of even one brave American soldier – PERIOD!
7 out of 10 Americans want us out, but Rove somehow found a handful of soldiers to tell Gates to send in more troops.
Ahhh, Reuters, just doing their job and not asking the sticky questions like “who are these lippy GI’s anyway?”
That post has enough material for a Stephen Colbert to do a month of shows.
Democrats can’t look weak for opposing an insane policy from an insane P/VP? wtf
Who doesn’t benefit when the killing stops? Noecons and NeoCorps. period end of story.
See Randron at 14. What he said!
I’m not sure what the officers thought about Vietnam.. I remember being on campus and talking to a Naval Officer (pretty high ranking as I recall) who said that what we needed ta do was nuke em..If he’s still alive- he probably still feels that way..
Don’t know if it would’ve stopped the war– would have gotten lots of chinese and russian attention.
As soon as the Democrats won the Congress in the November mid-terms, I predicted that BushCo Inc. would seduce them into taking part ownership of the mess in Iraq. At this point the Republicans pretty much own Iraq all by themselves in a political sense, but if the Democrats buy into this silly ’surge’ campaign they are going to be part of the problem, and in the minds of America’s clueless electorate the blame will be shared by one and all.
Lou at 12,
It says I have to download quicktime. Mebbe later as it seems to take an excessive time to download things like that on my poor old ‘puter. :(
Eureka Springs, AR @ 3
Happy to help.
sorry Swopa, gotta go o/t
Ningn Usted No puede!!!
Calling All Central Texans !!!!
there’s to be a Christmas Eve Vigil at the prison – would love to hook up with any y’all
follow Pach’s link for Civil Rights Review – there’s a map – take a peek and see if you can make it (browser here at work isn’t playing nice !!)
if so, Puhleeze contact me at
clydeentomato_at_yahoo.com
it’s not just about whether Democrats can force a withdrawal; it’s about why we’re withdrawing.
Uh…’cause we lost?
Or ’cause we had no right to invade another country in the first place, without immanent threat?
Pssst: war crime. Pass the secret around.
Since GW started the comparisons of Iraq II to Viet. the dnc should close the loop with, do we want the same thing as Vietnam, 55000 dead Americans?
This time, let us pull out early, let us see what happens, then act. This preemptive stuff presumes way too much, like tracking an atom in the midst of a nuke. Far better to wait out of range rather than become radioactive trying something likely futile.
“Are we covering the spread”
Brilliant!
rwcole @ 25
yes, with blood.
If only..
If only our military leaders were taken seriously. They know how wars are fought, conducted, and won. Don’t hand matters of warfare to politicians – Let it be done by tacticians.
I would feel a heck of a lot more comfortable if a retired general was on the presidential ticket. Someone who was predicting the strains that the Iraq War, and Iraq occupation would have, instead of someone who had no fucking clue. Someone who knows the troops that they are sending to war.
Does anyone know who Sun Tzu is? Brilliant military tactician of ancient China. In every way that we are losing Iraq, if Sun Tzu’s lessons were practiced, we would have either won it, left before losing, or not gone in at all.
If only our military had more foresight, and if only had more guts to tell the president what needs to be done. I guess I should be thankful that our top brass are more loyal than they are smart.
….how to handle withdrawal politically in order to minimize damage to the Democratic Party.
Framed again.
That really should read: how to handle withdrawael politically in order to reduce the risk that Bush and Cheney and several others in the administration will end up in The Hague.
Muslim Sudan declared war on Christian Ethiopia today.
Re-deploy troops from Iraq to fight the actual War on Terror™.
If it exists but that’s a different thread, right?
Bush has no mission, no strategy, and no tactics. He has no support among our military leaders, no support from 41’s B/H-ISG buddies, no support from his subjects, no support from his former SecState, and no support from our elected leaders — except the McCain/Lieberman warmongers and the sad little AEI/PNAC Team B.
He is isolated more than Johnson or Nixon ever were. We must halt this madman’s progress to a religiously propagandized EndTimes WW3.
Troops
Home
NOW
If we could invade preemptively, why can’t we have a preemptive withdrawal? They didn’t need a real reason to invade; why a real reason to leave? We keep getting hung up on rationality when talking about the criminal bozos.
Just once it would be nice to have our dems in congress just do what’s right and not worry about the “political” ramifications (ie will it hurt their chance for re-election.) oh well, I’ll go back to trying to find the pony…
There is no need for the Democrats to do anything other than provide enough votes to continue funding the war. There are 205 Republicans in the House — so Pelosi should say
“we think your policy sucks, Mr. President. But you are President, and Commander in Chief, so we’ll make sure you have the 13 Democratic votes necessary to fund your war — all you have to do is get all 205 Republicans to continue to support you.
Electing to go to war is always an expensive failure. That’s why it ought to always be the very last option available.
Fortunately for Dems–and progressives–this will be an easy argument. By the time Bush has gone, we’ll have a pile of debt related to Iraq, Afghanistan and his phony “war on terror.” And very, very little to show for it.
All the Dems have to do is point out, in very simple, uncomplicated ways, all the things Americans will be doing without in the future because there’s no money for them.
Hey, petedownunder! How is the weather across the ditch? We had a nice summery frost here in the center of the North Island this morning.
Thanks for the advice on the trial in Seattle too. At the last minute, they postponed the trial but I was already on the way, so they did a Perpetual Disposition (with court reporter and video tape), I think it was. The defense attny was rather unpleasant but survivable. Gave me a chance to find out what I escaped all those years ago…had no idea that the man I fended off was so dangerous.
Brilliant post, a printout of which needs to be rolled into a cylinder and pounded into the ears of Reid, Clinton, and other finger-to-the-wind conservoDemocrats.
And you know how the Democrats can win this? I’ll tell you. After letting Viet Nam go on TOO LONG, America was forced to fly helicopters out ahead of an angry mob, and we were as a nation ashamed to look back for a long time.
Rather than let it get that bad, Dems need to produce an actual plan for VICTORY in Iraq, with Victory defined in Democratic terms that the American people will understand.
That means NO unilateral disengagement, but it does mean negotiating with Iraqi and regional powers to produce a cease-fire in the civil war. It means reduction in troop levels, but it also means a Marshall-esque plan for rebuilding Iraq – a plan agreed to by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Turkey.
Democrats can “win” in Iraq by doing something the Republicans have NEVER done: by defining what the hell “winning” is. And then doing it.
But we have to both HAVE leadership domestically, and SHOW leadership internationally. Frankly, we have to go hat-in-hand to the Mideast powers and say “Okay, look, the Bush administration and America has fucked this up. But new blood is taking over in D.C., and we’d like your help to put things right.”
Then we rebuild Iraq, we rebuild Afghanistan, and we turn those nations into strong allies instead of destroyed enemies.
THAT’S winning. And the Democrats can do that, if any of the party leadership has the balls and foresight to make it happen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6199239.stm
Sry Somalia declared war on Christian Ethiopia
No matter what happens, the right will blame the left, always. So, sticks and stones – Unless this is all just a game and the people and money beingwasted by us being there is not as significant as the talking points and blame game the right might get a leg up in, then the only position to support is getting out now.
To say again:
There is only one guy in washington that is saying “No more money for Iraq. Send the troops home now.” – Dennis Kucinich
I hear Obama talking about tucking his kids in at night and Edwards talking about Workers of the world unite and Hillary mumbling. All to what end? Stay the course until the disaster is so complete that even the most diehard redneck will have to allow that Iraq was a ‘mistake’. Gutless
Kucinch says “No more money. Bring the troops home now.”
Yet he is rarely mentioned in the lefty blogs, or if he is it’s w/ the ‘kiebler elf’ image. Snark’s are fine if they are exposing the superficial but not so much when they are superficial.
Kucinich is the only guy saying the obvious, if you really want to end the occupation then don’t give bush anymore money to support it.
start the meme now:
BUSH’S FOLLY
BUSH’S MISTAKE
BUSH’S QUAGMIRE
BUSH’S TRAGEDY
This mess must be branded to the cheek of the leader who failed.
“If Democrats press too hard on withdrawal from Iraq, the end result will probably be a rerun of the Vietnam myth: we could have won in Iraq, but feckless liberals snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and precipitated a national humiliation.”
This is an astounding statement. Here’s some observations:
1. Using this “reasoning”, the Republicans can (in their own minds) evade responsibility for all their bloody and stupid actions in Iraq. Either we keep killing——forever——or blame the Democrats for pulling out “just as we were about to win.”
2. Vietnam myth? The myth is a neocon invention. Yeah, we “won” the Tet offensive. What, exactly, did we win? The opportunity to continue to kill and be killed? We were in no danger of defeating the Vietcong. And, if we had, we could guarantee that they wouldn’t rest while being occupied by foreigners. (Just like Iraq today.)
3. If the Democrats press to hard on withdrawal. What about the voters? And the American people. WE THE PEOPLE want out NOW. Ackerman and others ignore this…to try to make political gains. It won’t work—the people have rejected the war and rejected the policies of this president and his supporters.
4. Ackerman is worried about “humiliation” but not the deaths of American soldiers or innocent civilians. That is absolutely sick.
Great post, Swopa.
Looks like we’re talking escalation & attack –
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/am….._the_abyss
what an endless nightmare
The first thing is to call it what it is: an occupation. Everything else from there is easier from a framing standpoint.
rizbiz @ 40
and the democrats have to learn how to phrase their response…this MUST be laid at the door of the man and the party responsibible
bmstl @ 43
absolutley
our soldiers completed their mission, they were incredbile, efficient and an UNQUALIFIED success
it was the political endeaver that followed that failed…they occupation.
our soldiers are not politicians, they are not the Iraqi police force, they are not painters of schools.
Cancer Cures @ 27
I can’t agree with you there. I think Wes Clark would make a fine president, but I think it’s dangerous to believe that we have to have a general as president to get rational decisions about whether to go to war and when to get out. There were lots of people who predicted the disatrous effects of the Iraq War, not just generals, and we’ve had generals who were less than sensible in separating the country’s objectives from the military’s.
My point is, when you have a president who has screwed up everything, the solution is not to replace him with an expert in one of the things he’s screwed up, it’s to replace him with someone who’s actually capable of getting things right most of the time.
I forget who posted this from sun tzu’s work “the art of war” but oh man this from sun point;
.
“Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which one do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by December, 2007 — that is, in 12 months time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq.” Options rotated
.
Immediately By 12/07 As Long
As Needed Send More Unsure
% % % % %
12/15-17/06
21 33 32 11 3
Latest polling on withdrawal
21% say leave now
33% say leave by the end of next year
Add em together and you’ve got a majority.
I suspect that one more year is about all this thing’s got left in her.
ccokz @ 29
Freakin’ Crusades redux.
john in california @ 39
I’ve even heard Republicans saying that. He’s ruining their brand, don’t you know. They expect Democrats to spend not one more dime for war.
I heard on NPR today that out of the $99 billion request for funding, $10 billion is what the troops who’re there actually need.
I think we have to simply say, “No more.”
Swopa rules!
AmericaBlog:
Swopa,
Glad to see you here.
If I mistype imminent enough times as immanent, does it become an acceptable alternative spelling?
egregious @ 54
of so, then from here forward it’s new QUE ler
NOT
nuclear
Re: the branding thing:
I kinda like BUSH’S FOLLY
It has a nice historiical ring to it. But it should always appear in a sentenece with the words “illegal occupation”. or “war crimes”
Look, let’s cut the wankery before it gets out of hand.
The American people want out of this war and they want it now. PERIOD!!!!
The only ones who want us to stay are the Republicans and their lackeys in the “Mainstream” media. It’s obvious that the latter will do all they can to attack the Democratic party ( which has many members that are in fact Republicans) and by extension The American People.
So the best thing for The American People to do is attack the “Mainstream” Media.
By Any Means Necessary.
What do we have on Joe Klein for isntance? How can he be pantsed publically? Is there a darker scandal of some sort that can be played up to Anna Nicole proportions? I’m sure there is so let’s get to it and KICK THEM TO THE CURB!!!!
Hard and often.
David
21% of em want out now.
That’s a lowball figure.
What most americans want is a miracle- but they aren’t willing to wait around long for it to happen.
The Sunni insurgents have defeated the American forces in Al Anbar province. A Sunni Shiite civil war has broken out. It is insanity to marginally increase the number of boots on the ground and then attack the largest Shiite militia. Meanwhile the White House refuses to talk to neighboring countries on possible political settlements.
Democrats, Pundits and Corporate Media [except Paul Krugman] are guilty of not comprehending, let alone framing, the truth that the civilian leadership and goodly portion of the Pentagon have been taken over by radical true believers.
It’s all about the stall.
W is desperate to push this mess into the lap of the next Administration, at which time they’ll be completely free to claim all would have been well if only …
The ’surge’ requires several months to ramp up (or fake), and at least 6-8 months to ‘try’. By that time, we’re getting close to 08, an election year, when real paralysis will set in. Meanwhile, more deaths occur and stasis, at best, is the result.
It’s all about the stall.
Margot @ 50
I haven’t heard those repubs, but worse, I haven’t any other dems saying ‘no more money’.
They’re falling all over each other to ’support the troops’, ie. give the brass all the money they want. that 90.7 billion is on top of 70 billion already in the pipe. None of this will ever end until congress says ‘ no more money’ . Kucinich is leading that, no one else. In Washington, ideas have to have a face to get anywhere. Kucinch is the face of ‘Stop the money Now!’ It doesn’t matter who is the dem candidate in ‘08. By then we will be another 1/2 trillion dollars and who knows how many lives more in the red.
everybody has a congressperson. emailing only take a minute, telling your friends only takes a minute. Flood them over Christmas w/ “No more Money – Get out Now”
David
That’s the most recent CNN poll- the CBS poll that asked a similar question a week or so ago got 25%- so it’s somewhere in there.
That doesn’t resolve any issue- but is shows where the nation is willing to go and where they will resist.
All about the stall–
Hang time, or hanging time?
11% want more troops in; apparently that is somewhat representative of the generals and troops too (I say that because there are generals now not afraid to be on record about it, so it must be a strong sentiment).
So 79% of Americans do not favor escalation. I think the media should be all over this, as David suggests. My guess is that the 21% number will grow if Bushco pushes this.
I agree that Bush would prefer to have this thing slide into the next administration- then if the next person stands and fights and wins- Bush gets credit (unlikely) on the other hand- if the next person bails out- Bush can always say- “It would have worked out fine if “x” hadn’t cut and run..
egregious @
54
No, it isn’t an acceptable alternative spelling because immanent’s definition, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th edition), is:
With recourse to the same dictionary, we see that imminent’s definition is:
Drum concludes
Answer: They don’t want us there
It doesn’t matter what Joe Schmo in Omaha thinks, or Richmond, or Springfield, or Boise, or …, what matters is what the Iraqis want. They don’t like us; they don’t respect us.
They want us to leave them alone
We’ve gone past The Point of No Return. Professor Robert Cialdini did a study called Reverse Foot in Door Effect in which they found the point at which people went from saying “yes” to a question or situation to saying “no” – we have gone past that point in Iraq
Do you have a teenager? Remember when you were one? Remember that point when you went from believing everything your parents told you because you though they were omniscient? Remember when you realized they weren’t Gods or Goddesses (sp?); you you knew they could be wrong?
That is how the Iraqis feel
That is why we can’t “win”
We can’t fight an entire population of Iraqis
We can’t fight an entire population of Islam
(sorry if this is already covered, just came online)
JOHN
The very best solution is for the Iraqis to kick our asses out- but so far they haven’t been willing to do that.
sorry, that is 89%. Hmmm, that is a lot.
Santa confides to d r i f t g l a s s:
David Ehrenstein @57:
What do we have on Joe Klein for isntance? How can he be pantsed publically? Is there a darker scandal of some sort that can be played up to Anna Nicole proportions? I’m sure there is so let’s get to it and KICK THEM TO THE CURB!!!!
I agree with the sentiment, but it might be hard to catch Joke Line in any kind of sex scandal– I mean, what woman would touch him?
Maybe there’s some security camera footage of him sniffing one of his female colleagues’ chairs after hours?
No edit button today?
Disregard the 2nd “you” in the last paragraph
John, I thought it was there for emphasis…
rwcole @ 70
But who speaks for “the Iraqis”? Maliki?
David Olsen @ 76
weren’t we already “kicked out” when they put an end to an investigation we were conducting?
We’re stalling because we’re hostage to Bush’s dilemma, that is, his failure to accept any honest evaluations of the severe shortcomings of his administration’s Iraq, Afghanistan and GWOT strategies.
We’re stalling because the Israel lobby is holding our elected politicians hostage to the Israeli government’s inability to honestly evaluate the growing and severe limitations and inevitable failure of their longstanding policy of overwhelming response to security threats, real and perceived.
We’re stalling because the millenialists and Judeo-Christian Jihadis here and elsewhere muck up attempts to create productive dialogues with the Muslim world.
Bush has only been here for six of the sixteen years of war, and will be gone soon. But the long-term dominance of the Israel lobby and Saudi lobby over the bases of our Middle East policies will keep us from having mch freedom of action, no matter who is elected president in 2008.
The US Senate will remain hostile to realistic Israel/Saudi policies by our government far into the future. So will the White House. The key to finding ways out of the kidnapping of our foreign policy by the Saudi and Israeli interests is in the US House.
OT – yikes, Melanie Sloan admonished for commenting about Libby and the subpoena:
the admonishment
rwcole @ 70
1. Which Iraqis? Green zone or everywhere else?
2. Why is this a better solution? Who will be taught a lesson? The right? The military? The American People (whoever that is)? The dems?
I was in the military at the beginning of the Vietnam buildup. There wasn’t a time when it wouldn’t have been better to leave. Finally, it was clear to most that we couldn’t ‘win’, that we could never have ‘won’. But that was 58 thousand Americans and over a million Vietnamese later. Less than 20 years later we in Iraq and bush1 was crowing about “finally, we’re over the Vietnam syndrome”. If humans could learn by their mistakes, we would all be in Paradise.
No, the best the best thing would be to get behind the only thing that will lead to a resolution in Iraq and that is US troops out now.
I asked this awhile back and never got an answer.
What happens if the generals refuse to follow the nit’s orders?
What is the military code for countermanding an order?
Would this be tantamount to a coup? Junta?
Just askin’ that’s all.
ET, let me add that we are stalling until we know there will be no chance of a strong leader (such as al Sadr) taking charge. We actually prefer the chaos and sectarian killing to a strong, unified nationalistic movement in Iraq. This is the Israeli formula in Palestine as well.
rizbiz @ 81
I think I did, but probably late in that thread. UCMJ, Article 94 violation, as I recall. It’s a general courts martial offense.
But, that’s not the way it happens–generals don’t do that. They just resign and/or retire. Then they go on talk shows and complain….
Apparently Sistani is still running the show in Iraq..If he says “Tell em ta leave”! We’ll be told ta leave- do not pass go etc.
rwcole @84
to see sistani’s place in the Iraqi Shia political spectrum as well a historical overview, a good article is at:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR31.6/rosen.html
rwcole @ 84
This is true. That’s why I don’t spend much time worrying about permanent bases or plans to steal Iraq’s oil… we’re gone as soon as Sistani says we have to go.
Swopa @ 86
And if Bush follows Kissinger’s advice and arranges a coup in order to install a more cooperative government? ???
W’s stalling, waiting for Cheney’s special ops/false flag attack on our clustered naval group (or Britain’s, which accompanied us into the Straits). All this debate about a “surge” will be moot when W gets his Tonkin Gulf Resolution based on this “unprovoked attack” on our ships. Then the AirForce will get its MidEast war, bunker busters in Iran, all attention focused on the flash-bang.
On another note, I sure wish I had dogs, it’s gonna be a cold wet night in the Bay Area this evening….
Swopa @ 86
I have to dissagree
we have built an “embasy” the size of the vatican
if we want to stay we’re staying
Kemo @82,
Keep your enemies divided, I guess is the motto.
rwcole @ 84
conclusion: our presence in Iraq is un-Sistani-ble
yeah!: if 89% of the American people want no escalation, and B/H-ISG sez it’s “grave and deteriorating,” and the Joint Chiefs won’t come aboard the surge — why should the opposition of some damn Iraqis matter to the Chimp?
He’s got his god-given mission and he’s sticking to it. Until we stop him. Which we must.
perris @ 47
it’s kinda like comedy:
what`s the secret of comedy?timing!
only different ……
it is about time though, and that’s what’s so tragic about fuckwad’s folly. his idea about timing is to wait it out, so he can hand this bloody, bloody, repulsive horror to someone else, and then blame them for not “winning”.
if it weren’t for all of the dying and rape and murder and destruction and ruined lives congress ought to rescind another part of the constitution and say to fuckwad: “look, fuckwad, we’ve decided that you have to stay president until you end this war. you can’t leave the white house until it’s over, once and for all. and you have to go to every funeral of every dead soldier and marine until it’s over. and jenna and not jenna and laura have to go and be nurse’s aides in the military hospital in rahmstein until it’s over and cheney has to go to iraq and work in the mess hall until it’s over.”
i know that there’s no logic to my narrative but that’s how i feel about it. whatever happens, we do need to make sure that bush is held responsible in every way possible.
montag @ 87
Sistani issues a fatwa to resist, and there go our troops’ supply lines. Everything hits the fan.
If it weren’t for Sistani’s clout, we wouldn’t have let the current government take office in the first place.
Circustani Soleil
Wrt Sistani, Swopa had an excellent post about him over at needlenose. Is SCIRI floating another “Sistani says so” swindle?
Imagine the USA were having this kind of raucous public debate in early November 1963 about Vietnam — wouldn’t the public rally to the war on November 23rd simply to honor JFK’s memory?
Cheney’s got a plan.
I’m not sure I can exactly describe it, but there was a very definite, calculated approach evident in Bush’s news conference yesterday (as interpreted, at least, through twolf1’s excellent live-blogging here of Bush’s answers). As Bush concluded, it dawned on me that he had just managed to get way ahead of the PR curve on Ye Olde Democratic Party, yet again. Bush is moving the goal posts, framing the debate, and moving forward, without waiting to discuss matters with Members of Congress or anyone else besides Rove and Cheney.
Bush’s cover is, of course, “fake good faith” and the ability to hide behind the respect that the public and media maintain for the office he holds. What a gift to a responsibility-spurning, accountability-dodging, confrontation-hostile personality like George W. Bush. No member of the media, or presumably Congress, dares to treat Bush as the fellow, flawed human being that he is, and question him accordingly. Bush is loving every minute of it. The pattern in yesterday’s answers by Bush needs serious study by the Democrats (and the press).
Maybe we can force reality into the discussion about Iraq by getting down into the nitty-gritty. No more vague generalizations about “withdrawal” or “redeployment” but instead descriptions of the daily duties of our forces there and what’s working and what isn’t (if we can obtain same from some source). Who is getting shot at, and who is doing the shooting, and how are they doing the shooting, as well as why. No more “men in police uniforms/vehicles” shooting civilians (as TwistedMartini?/Eli?/someone @ FDL pointed out), in other words, but calling it what it appears to be: “Iraqi police” shooting civilians (who has any proof otherwise?). In addition to describing and discussing ways of safeguarding what remains of Iraqi infrastructure, and identifying who is doing the sabotaging, and how they might be stopped. Etc., etc. [As far as I know, for example, any time we want to protect American troops in Iraq, we can pull them back to the gigantic bases that we built there, and ‘problem solved.’ Thus, we could pull back from select areas one by one, to try to see the consequences for Iraqis (I believe that has actually been done repeatedly), and to understand who fills the resulting vacuum. All that without any actual redeployment out of Iraq. We simply don’t have the full story about our presence in Iraq, at all, here in the states.]
Americans, and the media, are not working from a set of understood and agreed-upon facts about the situation on the ground in Iraq, so it is too easy to talk at cross purposes, and to little avail, about policy solutions (yet another dire consequence of the absence of a free press and its vital contributions to a healthy, informed national debate about matters of grave import).
89%
And rising.
TeddySanFran @ 88
Jeebus, Teddy, that scares the shit out of me, because I just got word last night that it’s my son’s ship that is going to be hot-footing it over to the Gulf to be positioned to enforce sanctions that haven’t been imposed yet.
I have a cynical, borderline conspiracy theory world view after the past twelve years, but that one hadn’t even occurred to me yet.
Surely they aren’t that crazy.
Swopa @ 94
For every move, there’s a countermove–great opportunity for the Air Force to start flattening cities, for Bush to force Congress into upping max. force levels, grab a few more National Guard, etc.
I keep coming back to the original neo-con plan to install Chalabi, and failing him, Allawi. It was Sistani, after all, that upset that applecart by demanding an election with a full slate.
Plenty of ways to kill Sistani. Sure, the place would go up in flames, but when was President Cheney ever concerned about that sort of thing?
pow wow @ 98
Amen, and then some. The more we educate people about the reality in Iraq, the more they will respond with, “Holy $&#@!, we need to get out of there.”
Rock ‘em, Sock ‘em Fitz update, upstairs.
i know this is anecdotal but i just spent the day with an iraqi friend. he told me that he was actually glad when we invaded iraq. he wanted us to take sadam out. what has happened since then, not so much.
and whoever said that sistani is calling the shots, sorry, but nobody is calling the shots there. he’s got influence but calling the shots is a bit of a stretch. hyperbole, i think. wish i cound stay around but the internet shop in franfurt is closing now. gotta go ……
Redd’s got a new thread.
Tweety says Judge Walton hammered Melanie Sloan (Wilson’s Civil attorney) for her comments on Tweety about what the jury might do in the criminal case.
Swopa, Thanks again.
If you read the Rosen article it is clear that Sistani can do little to affect events. He has called for an end to the bloodshed but it is out of his hands. He has no militia. He spent a lot of years in exile in Iran. He is old and in many ways remote. The bush team had as much to do w/ making him the face of Shia Islam as the Iraqis because of his hatred for saddam. Al Sadr has the power to break the government, whether he can defeat the Sunis is to be seen.
Their is no positive resolution for the US. Like Vietnam, there will be purges, persecution and refugees and lots of misery for Iraqis’ for years to come. Also, no doubt Americans will forget them as well as the wounded vets just as we did after Vietnam. But us being there a minute longer won’t make it better, only worse. We don’t get to pick the winners in this one. We don’t have the power. Time to leave. Now.
TeddySanFran @ 97
Okay. I think I know what you are saying. But I am not 100% sure. Say if differently one more time.
fahrender @ 104
You’re right in an overall sense — Sistani’s in over his head, too, and he’s lost influence because he invested so much effort in putting the current inept government in place.
But he’s got enough juice left that if he issued a fatwa telling Shiites to drive the U.S. out, we’d be toast.
The problem is that the minute that we withdraw from Iraq, things WILL get worse. Both in the Middle East and for America. We will feel America’s decline for decades to come.
The challenge is to communicate that the cause of this decline is not our withdrawel. And those that push for a withdrawel are not the guilty ones.
The #1 cause is the hubris that too many in this country had that we were so powerful that we could stamp our feet, shake our fists, have a little tantrum, and that the world would have no choice but to do our bidding.
The #2 cause is that too many people in this country were too willing to throw away the basic building blocks of democracy in this country in order to excercise this hubris.
There are a lot of guilty people in the country. Every person in this country who accused people who questioned whether going to war was the right thing to do of being anti-American is guilty of creating this mess. Every person in the media who supported that anti-democratic veiw, every person in the media who helped to swift boat anyone who questioned whether we were hearing the truth is doubly guilty. Every person in our government who helped to drive out people who tried to conduct an honest debate of facts is three times guilty.
And already the guilty are working on covering their guilt. One only needs to read the article on the Neocon’s positions today in the Jan. issue of Vanity Fair to see that.
I’m not sure how the Dems can successfully navigate these waters, but what I would love to see is a return to honor in this country and for the especially guilty to start falling on their swords.
Pacifica @111
If you believe ‘it’ (and by this I presume you mean the violence in Iraq) will get worse when we leave, then you must believe that, somehow, we are keeping it from getting worse by our troops presence. I disagree. I don’t see how we are keeping the factions apart, or creating a viable government. We are being used by various factions at various times as scapegoat, enemy and supplier of weapons. That is, a tool for their purposes, not, as bush supposes, the other way around. If you think we must leave soon, but now is not quite the time then ask yourself what conditions would make it all right and then ask yourself if there is anyway this (US) government can achieve those conditions. Otherwise, get out now.
John in CA,
Pulling US troops out will have the effect of pulling Sunni Arabs in. The natural boundary is the Euphrates, and the Shiites will end up on one side of it, the Sunnis on the other. Even the Romans new better than to try conquering Persia, they followed a doctrine of containment:
“Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be drained off in the attempt.” Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138
We need to have open hearings in Congress before appropriating any more money. This will bring the American people into the process and shed some light into an area the Republicans kept in the dark. And it will build political will for making what is a truly tough choice: to do the right thing and accept a political cost (as opposed to a Bushian “tough choice” to sacrifice somebody else’s child to your ego-invested disaster).
Marklord @113 and bizutti @114
Hadrian assessment seems right to me. If we had taken the money we have dumped in Iraq and spent it on alternate fuels and energy efficiency, instead of a sinking sand quagmire …
As for congress, Kucinich is the only guy standing up to the ‘Support the troops – more money for the occupation’ bulldozer. The way we can help is to email our reps, telling them to stand w/ Kucinich – No more money – bring the troops home
Crucial to make the case that the war is already lost and it was lost of the Republicans watch. Already lost.
I am so sick to death of all the game-playing and “strategizing.” I don’t give a fuck what kind of damage withdrawal from Iraq will cause the Democratic party because PEOPLE ARE DYING EVERY DAY FOR NO GODDAMN REASON.
We need to withdraw immediately because the war is wrong. To hell with the Democratic party.
Do I detect the presence of people who actually believe 9/11 was an unprovoked attack on the United States? After decades of supporting the Zionists, decades of supporting dictators of one stripe or another, decades of a foreign policy that, as Chomsky points out, is simply practice for how WE will be treated should we actually PRACTICE real political democracy (not the capitalist version currently shoved down our throats), it’s a miracle no one has NUKED our sorry ass!
Continue on with your dinner conversation.
John H. Farr @ 117
I sympathize with your frustration, but there are two problems. First, there’s not enough people in favor of immediate withdrawal to force it to happen. So, instead of merely asserting that it needs to happen, you/we need to find a way to persuade people.
Second, even if enough of a groundswell developed to force a withdrawal, the GOP will be happy to watch the aftermath, proclaim the withdrawal-now advocates responsible, and use that argument to elect a Republican president in 2008 or 2012 (supported by millions of now-guilty supporters of withdrawal) who may well take us into another war. How comforting will your being right feel then?
In The Fall, Albert Camus tells a parable about a
Your case is exceptional, John — you’re right about the Iraq war.
So, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to think about how to persuade others who don’t agree with you, or are you just going to wallow uselessly in your rightness?
I can’t read through all the comments, but wanted to toss my 2-bit analysis into the ring:
Bush’s intent is to force the hand of a Democratic Congress to cut off funding, thereby recreating a scenario ala Vietnam when the theme of “they sold out the troops” worked to perfection for a generation, convincing millions of idiots that only Republicans ever had any love for the military.
That’s the “longview” of all this, and one that Bush is very much aware of (comma anyone?) – and for him, to come out of Iraq eventually with nothing to show for it would be far easier to get over than having that combined with being unable to even trap a Dem Congress into looking bad over it.
Hence the push for a larger military (AFTER YEARS OF THE RUMMY TALK ABOUT A SMALLER MORE AGILE FORCE)…force the Democrats’ hand by insisting more is spent and see how long they can hold out.
In Bush’s mind right now it’s: “Will they hold out and roll the dice on winning in 2008, or can I somehow force them into actions that can be spun into a storyline about how ‘Democrats will not allow for victory – They are not willing to provide the resources that are essential to achieving victory.’
Stay with that idea in the weeks to come and see if it becomes a factor. Right now the generals are against Bush’s ideas, but keep in mind that promotions to fill those spots are in the air, and if Colon Powell is a great military blah blah blah, then you can bet your ass they’ve got plenty more where that came from…it goes like this:
“The big cheese has his eyes set on you, but he’s not about to place loyalty and reward you with this post if you’re not ON BOARD“
This part of the game…Bush has proven he understands it. The bullshit power politics game…whether his mojo is already spent up or not remains to be seen.
Whoa Swopa @119
Your a little condescending aren’t you? Isn’t being right the right start? Maybe Mr. Farr has contacted his congressperson, told his friends how he feels, maybe written an oped. Maybe he’ll be in streets. Camus’ point was that if you wait until you get to the Camp it is too late. There is nothing as useless as throwing up your hands and saying ‘I can’t do anything’ because I am not in the majority. You make your position the majority by holding it w/out compromise, without waiting for everybody else to catch up.
Will we lost the war again?
Haven’t lost it yet, though the Democrats are doing everything they can in that respect. Vietnam redux, indeed.
But, mimicking their heroes, the French, the Democrats won’t lost, just surrender.
The riddle needing to be solved is how do we get out of a situation that on a basic survival level feels good or at least did feel good. What bush and Co. did was use the strongest military in history in a way we haven’t experienced. Who did he use it on? In the “just a comma” view, he used it on the people who took over the embassy in Tehran, 79′. The people who blew-up the Beirut Marine barracks, 83′. The people who kidnapped Terry Anderson and a host of others during the mid-80’s. These events have been going on most of my life, 69′, growing to include the 93′ WTC bombing, the 00′ Cole Attack and ending with 9/11. The people who tried to kill Poppy bush.
This is a simple, incomplete, uncomplicated and ridiculous view, but it fits into our need to understand it. We don’t have a long attention span, but everyone remembers them.
To Octopibingo #122, when did you get back or when are you going to basic training? Me? 13F 87′-89′. Step up and lead by example.
Keep the focus on the lead up to the war, the lies that were used to sell the war, as well as the incompetent execution of the war.
Ask lots of questions, subpoena witnesses, get documents released.
It doesn’t really matter that the Democrats don’t have any good options on the question of withdrawal. nobody does
Just keep hitting the Republicans over and over again with the fact that they went to war based on a pack of lies. They cooked the books on intelligence, they falsely linked Iraq to 9/11.
The public will eat it up because nobody wants to believe they were wrong to support the war. Telling them they were duped and lied to, and then the execution was screwed up is a much easier sell.
if the chorus of ridicule over Bush’s cowardly posturing from a strong, morally based Democratic party is effective enough, we may even browbeat the loser into changing course in Iraq.
That’s going too far into the realm of fantasy.
Lemieux is right. Think of the men and women in the special hell that we’ve made of Iraq right now, and demand withdrawal. Do the right thing and quit obsessing about “how they’ll frame us”.
A couple of responses to folks
Albatross said :
“Rather than let it get that bad, Dems need to produce an actual plan for VICTORY in Iraq, with Victory defined in Democratic terms that the American people will understand.”
That presumes victory is possible. If anyone thinks that a cease fire will work in iraq, then they are not understanding the situation. It is NOT in the best interests of many of the parties to get a cease fire. Sure it helps the US, but not its opponents, who see victory in chaos.
There comes a point where any good outcome for one side or the other does not exist. We have passed that point. Many do not want to realize that. And in terms of leadership, I think I’d respect any party that withdrew us from an unwinnable situation, and re-engaged on a different field, than sticking it out til body counts affects poll numbers and they felt politically covered in leaving.
Tim also makes what I think is a great point – that many of us feel we used our power on at least part of the right people (mostly the Taliban, but some think Saddam as well) and wonder how something that seemed right can now be so bad.
I think it is a basic misunderstanding of the use of power, and the difficulty of defeating a movement in an undeveloped part of the world that has been wracked with violence for 50 years or longer.
To take out just the Taliban, we needed many of the special forces sent to Iraq, we needed Pakistani support and permission to go into the Pakistani tribal areas, and we needed (need) to stay a good long time. Didn’t happen, We got sidetracked, and pulled into a place that required more $, people and diplomacy than we could spare to get any real sense of success. We felt we had beaten the Taliban, and that we’d beaten the Iraqis before. Militarily perhaps, but why we didn’t understand the lessons of the Intifada or Vietnam of the NW Border problems when the British ruled India is beyond me. Only thing that makes any sense is sheer hubris.