I heard some poor fool on the radio over the weekend say that the Iraq war can't continue without the country's support.
Sure it can. It is and will continue.
The "Surge" is to buy time. Now they say that it will take months to see if it works.
The command structure for Bagdad will cause a nightmare. It won't work.
The people are far ahead of the government on this.
The wait and see attitude is a formula for disaster.
A slow troop draw down would leave those on the ground as targets.
I think that congress should not fund the "Surge". Other money is being used to start this phase, but it will run out.
Those who say that congress ought to use the power of the purse to end this war are right.
There is no other way to stop this.
Take into consideration if the supply lines get cut off to the US troops.
If the US crosses the borders of Iran ans Syria.
It can only get worse.
Yeah, remember when you had such hope for the new Democratic congress?
paradox, can you do us a favor? Spare the melodrama. The Democrats have almost certainly not "lost control of the media narrative." If anything, the media narrative is increasingly one of Bush's fecklessness and isolation, and its trumping everything else.
Posted by flaver at January 16, 2007 06:53 AMI think Democrats are doing a reasonably good job of decrying the President's decisions while offering alternatives that are just mush-mouthed enough to stay out of Stab in the Back discussions. What's more, they are confronting their fellows across the aisle with some important decisions about whether now is the time to flee a clearly sinking ship.
People are decrying the uselessness of some of these proposed non-binding resolutions, but if I'm a GOP congresscritter right about now, the LAST thing I want is to have to give my full support to this escalation "plan," however symbolic the vote may be. Unlike the chimperor, I've got to try to get elected in '08. People in that bind have a strong incentive to go to Bush behind the scenes and ask him to change the specifics of his proposal, sparing the Democrats some of the heavy lifting.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 16, 2007 06:58 AMIf we don't pull the rug out, then other criminals will kill our people again. That is what our government wants them to do, that is proven fact. Be straight up with yourself and see if anything else can explain the carnage.
I don't think all of us have realized what it means to have all our military out of country, and having private military back from Iraq and under the control of..... Who might that be?
I disagree with the premise you seem to put forth that "disaster" is forthcoming. No, it is here now, and the end of our government is here as well. The country will find out about the crimes and wonder why the ruling party did not take action
pretending that this isn't a coup instituted by the right wing is downright naive, and most unproductive. The republicans that are not insane are going to join when they realize their political future is on the line.
now is not the time to release pressure on a criminal enterprise, it is time to ratchet up
Posted by oldtree at January 16, 2007 07:02 AMIf we don't pull the rug out, then other criminals will kill our people again.
If we DO pull the rug out, we will restore credibility on matters of national security to the GOP that they have lost over the last year or so. We have the public on our side, but it is critical that any forced end to the war has a significant buy-in from the other side of the aisle. It can be done, and it must.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 16, 2007 07:12 AMYou know, the theory that troop withdrawal will create a "disaster" makes me laugh. What in the hell do you call Iraq right now?
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2007 07:38 AMOh, Iraq can—and will—get much worse, Judith. The thing is, we can't stop that from happening, so we might as well come home.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 16, 2007 07:43 AMI watch an amazing CNN documentary last weekend on the field hospitals for our soldiers in Iraq. They followed a doctor around for 2 weeks.
It was indescribably awful, soldiers would come in with limbs blown off or mangled horribly, pints of blood pooling on the floor, yet the soldiers were conscious.
"Am I fucking dying?" they'd ask. They all asked it--"Am I dying?" The doc would say no, always. Later in the program he said he always said no and truly believed it, but didn't know at it was just a soldier's time, is all, and they died right in front of him.
He never lied when they asked if they were going to keep and arm and a leg. He just told them straight up they weren't dying, but your leg is gone.
"Am I fucking dying?" He asked. They all did, every single time.
The melodrama in war is a bitch, isn't it, flaver? You know us drama queens, our people losing legs and dying for nothing as they commit a vast war crime, damn, those queens always exploit of it all.
Posted by paradox at January 16, 2007 07:48 AMI've waded into this before. Anyone who doesn't see the danger for Democrats on this issue is blind or foolish.
I fully expect responses like 'all you care about is how the Democrats look', blah, blah, blah...
But the reality of the situation is this, there are two parties in this country. Republicans and Democrats. That's not gonna change in the next couple of years. No one is saying we shouldn't try to brake the two party strangle hold on our politics but it ain't gonna happen over the course of two years. No matter how hard you wish. So you're either stuck with the Republicans or you deal with the less than perfect Dems. I know what I choose.
No one is gonna end this war over night. There isn't going to be a surrender. Or a treaty signing that's gonna allow everyone to go home. It's quite realistic, given the posture of the Bush administration, that this war will continue into the next administration. That die may have been cast in March of 2003.
A Democratic move to cut off funding could put the Republicans back in the White House in 2008.
Does anyone what to assure that that happens?
Posted by snark at January 16, 2007 08:04 AMIraq can indeed get much worse, especially if we withdraw. We are not completely powerless to stop the situation from spinning out of control. Most of the public believes we have already lost. If that is true (which it is not), it is only because we chose to lose and decided it wasn't worth the effort. Bush's bungling of the war has helped to convince the public of this. And, yes, pulling the troops or denying them funding is deciding to lose.
We should really stop being so selfish (thinking that it is only about us and our sacrifices) and actually think about the Iraqis for a change, those same Iraqis who we will abandon.
Funny that when one voices this perspective, one is at times labeled a Rightwing Neo-Con member of BushCo. Where have all the real Progressives gone?
On a side note, now that Iraq is "free" and victory was obtained in May 2003, it is extemely difficult for Iraqis to immigrate to the US and escape that hellish country.
I'm with DJ: In our failed democracy, with its corrupted press, ending the occupation will require significant Repub participation. In order to successfully confront the executive on a "war" matter, both parties in Congress must have a consensus.
The tactical offensive by Dems should be in saying that they want to force the "president" to change course, but if the Congressional Repubs won't help confront Nero, it's just not possible.
If some Repubs do join a non-binding resolution, will they be willing to do more when Nero inevitably ignores it completely? That's the question.
Posted by euzoius at January 16, 2007 08:08 AMInBasement, there are plenty of real progressives, but they just aren't willing to bite on your disingenous, manipulative, cynical, Rightwing tactic of decrying the lack of concern for the Iraqis and your side's heretofore quite faulty neo-con crystal ball.
You're a one trick pony, and we've now heard (and responded) to your "certain humanitarian crisis" and simplistic "win-lose" dichotomy several times. No need to respond again. Anything else?
Posted by euzoius at January 16, 2007 08:20 AMI'm with dj and snark as well. As much as we want immediate action, it's not going to happen overnight. The dems need to keep long term leadership, especially '08 election in mind, if they are going to clean up this mess properly. The people who voted the dems in do want the war to end as quickly as possible, but more than that, they want a feeling of stability, which has been more precarious each year Bush has been in office. Flailing about and creating a feeling of more instability is going to turn the people off, IMO.
If some Repubs do join a non-binding resolution, will they be willing to do more when Nero inevitably ignores it completely? That's the question.
And a good question it is.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2007 08:22 AMHow sure are you guys that the "stab in the back" scenario is inevitable? With 70 percent of the American public opposed to Bush's disasterous war of aggression, I'm amazed that this meme can find any traction at all, especialy in the progressive community. After all, unlike Bill O'Rielly's caracterization, we are not the "far left", we are the mainstream, or as Thom Hartman calls it, we're the radical middle. What the hell are all these Democrats afraid of?
Posted by Oaklander at January 16, 2007 08:27 AMThe GOP Controlled Media will never, never cross over and throw their weight behind the Left. It won't happen. As long as those on the Left, both in office and on the blogosphere think that that "might" happen, they'll continue to walk the tightrope between meaningfull actions and complacency. We have a serious problem in this country,formented in the days after the 2000 election where many waited around for the outrage to be broadcast, for the Media to rise up against the deceit. It didn't happen then, it didn't happen when most knew the WMD angle was a sham in 2003, and it won't happen now. The Executive Branch has taken over the operations of this government with full cooperation of the Media. Don't expect the Media to stop it. It has to be stopped by those who are willing to take the steps needed without worrying about what Limbaughs and Blitzers will say. And they need to start today.
Posted by T2 at January 16, 2007 08:34 AMHow sure are you guys that the "stab in the back" scenario is inevitable? With 70 percent of the American public opposed to Bush's disasterous war of aggression, I'm amazed that this meme can find any traction at all, especialy in the progressive community.
Because America has this idea that the CinC's control over military matters is all-encompassing (what we lawyers call "plenary"); it's not really true, but that's the public perception, and it's relentlessly reinforced by a power-worshiping Washington press corps.
The public elected Democrats to send Bush a message that the war should end. Bush has refused to listen, and they would really like him to change his mind. But if the Democrats simply take over, the public won't thank them for doing so. They won't even forgive them for doing so.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 16, 2007 08:35 AMgood thread. dj is right about the participation of the GOP - it seems that, at least in the senate, it's already there to an extent. and as oaklander points out, representing a majority position isn't a profile in courage.
Posted by benjoya at January 16, 2007 08:40 AMWhile 70% may be opposed to the war NOW, they were not always opposed to it. And they DID NOT elect Democrats in November to choke off funds and force a military withdrawal from Iraq. What they voted for was a change in how the war was being conducted.
Again, while the populus may be against the war that doesn't make immediate withdrawal the best option as far as our national security and our long term interests go. In otherwords, while there may be an argument to be made for withdrawal it shouldn't be predicated on the fact that 70% of the public don't like the war. And a withdrawal followed by increasing chaos in the region will be looked upon by many of that 70% as a Democratic failure. Personally, I'm not enamored of the idea that we should guide our foreign policy by national telephone polling. There are a lot of dimensions to any given policy that the average citizen doesn't pick up on from the local news or newspaper. And they'd be just as quick to turn around and shift blame to whoever was the most convenient target.
Posted by snark at January 16, 2007 08:57 AMjust think...where would the Bush Admin be if the Media had been even fair, not even adversarial like they were with Clinton. The Media is the Key for the situation we have now. Their job is to enhance the perception that the Dems are not representing the Majority. As this thread's title says, Tactical Offense is required, which I'd say means teamwork on the part of the Dems. A presidential election year is not likely to create much of that, at least from this summer on.
They must, starting with the SOTU, present a steel wall to anything Bush wants or intends. Slam everything, and quit worrying about the Talk Shows. The people are with them.
NO. The idea is to make the cretins justify their actions. If they cannot justify the "surge" in detail, they should not expect us to foot the bill for it.
They have a record of rank failure. They have demonstrated no competence. Would you continue funding a business which performed this way?
Fuck em. If they want the money, make them justify it.
Posted by God Of War at January 16, 2007 09:09 AMif you can't say when it ends, it's not a surge.
Posted by benjoya at January 16, 2007 09:23 AMSo that put's Dems in the same position that I (we) have been railing against.
Not doing the right thing to save lives simply because it is not the politically advantageous thing to do.
How do you explain to military families that we can't get you out of this fubar because politics is a tricky business?
I understand long-term consequences, greater good and so-forth.. but this is getting ridiculous. We have some sort of power and are still cowering to the right in the face political consequences.
yes the right will spin it, but we can get out ahead of that instead of always just reacting.
Posted by Simp at January 16, 2007 10:34 AMI think some arguments are being conflated here. COngressional witholding of money is not the same as immediate withdrawal. And the precision with which money is witheld has not been discussed (See Sen Kennedy). And the money needed for the surge is, according to Biden/Hoyer and Barney Frank, already in the pipeline.
I am with Judith on this philosophically: Iran cannot get any worse insofar as America is concerned. It can get a lot worse for Iraq and the Pottery Barn dictum still rings in our conscience. We (as a nation) bear responsibility, but discharging that duty with supplying human bull-eyes doesn't make sense to me. The Administration should be roundly exposed for its craven ways, arrogance, stupidity and cronyism--but if anything, THAT is the stuff we have time for. And the idea that 2008 Elections are in the balance now is, I believe, beside the point. It is plain the Cheney/Bush Administration set their sights on Iran and Syria long before the mid-terms, and put the ball in motion before the mid-terms. They were smart about that and they are counting on no resistance until it is too late. They are looking for another excuse to expand the scope of American invovlement in the Middle-east. They are going to find that excuse sooner, not later, for every hour that passes among indecisive, inactive, or superfluous action by the Dems.
Posted by gtash at January 16, 2007 11:27 AMI'm tired of bushco demanding a plan from the Dems for war stoppage.
It's like Baron Frankenstein shouting at the villagers: "If you don't like my creation destroying the town, then it's your responsibility to stop it."
Posted by TIKI AL at January 16, 2007 11:58 AMHadley says they've already got enough money to start the surge, and once they're in, they'll blackmail congress for more money, using the troops as bait:
Mr. Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said in an interview on "Meet the Press" on NBC that the White House has sufficient money under its control to deploy the troops as planned, and he suggested that once the troops are in place, Congress would be reluctant to cut off funding.
"I think once they get in harm's way, Congress's tradition is to support those troops," Mr. Hadley said.
Bushco already has the meme in place - "dems want to cut funds to troops." - and they plan to run with it.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 16, 2007 12:00 PM"While 70% may be opposed to the war NOW, they were not always opposed to it. And they DID NOT elect Democrats in November to choke off funds and force a military withdrawal from Iraq. What they voted for was a change in how the war was being conducted."
I will have to agree with Snark on that.
The fact is the approach toward the war effort has changed both quantitatively and qualitatively here. I know. I am a part of it. Probably the least in the basement.
As far as discussion goes, as the McCarthyists labled everyone "Communist", true discourse is not served by blanket statements labels: "BushCo, Neo-Con, Rightwinger"
I can think of many others who have generalized when it was both intellectually and politically convenient. The world is more complex than that.
I had hoped for more (at times, I've got it). I've wanted to hear something substantive.
Posted by InIraq at January 16, 2007 01:29 PMWhat happened to that "liberal media" we all knew and loved?
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2007 03:48 PM"Not doing the right thing to save lives simply because it is not the politically advantageous thing to do."
"How do you explain to military families that we can't get you out of this fubar because politics is a tricky business?"
Simp, I also have a difficult time with that and have written several posts showing my frustration with this issue. Is it the moral or right thing to do, or is it politically the right thing to do? That is the question. By-the-way, four more Americans were killed today. 35,000 Iraqis killed in 2006. Oh, the price we pay for oil.
Posted by Judith at January 16, 2007 04:05 PMI wonder if we can turn back from the brink, even with our Democrats holding the House and Senate. Albert Einstein said, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." I worry that Americans won't face that we are a military nation. We demolish countries with our bombs, and then pump our economy up by sending contractors in, as we profit from clearing away the debris. We leech off the resources of a country like Iraq, which finds itself under our occupation.
This is what we have become. There truly has to be an awakening of the American people. Of all the things we could have become as a nation--why this?
Of all models of nationhood to perpetuate--why do we perpetuate this?
I am shocked to the core whenever I read commentary that says we have not lost the war in Iraq. To say we have not lost there, is only to reiterate the concept that our own brand of terror on Iraqi streets is equated with winning. We are reduced to occupation and fortification and coercion and looting, much like the Roman Empire. There is neither a moral or political level at which we have not lost the war. And we are seen as defeated. According to the polls, the American people have caught on to this. Where is the yardstick--outside the bloody use of force--with which those who want us to stay longer in Iraq would measure?
And then there is the matter of the loot. Bush&Co are there like scavengers, forcing the weak government of an occupied country to give up possession of the national resource, and be satisfied with a percentage.
The level of thinking that created our paranoid National Security State, is not the model of thought that can get us out of Iraq.
Posted by Copeland at January 16, 2007 06:11 PM