No they have not and thank God for it.
There is no excuse for not "getting it" Mr. Paradox, not at this stage of the game.
Do you think such a bold fist in the face is going to work? The GOP did not get where they are using that tactic and we are not going to get anywhere using it either. As you noted the Democrats have been changing a few things..but it is not time to put the pedal to the metal.
Long range US policy in Iraq has always had several objectives.
1. Install a compliant client government that will allow oil sales on terms favorable to the west.
2. Replace bases lost in Saudi Arabia
3. Intimidate neighboring states
4. Deny oil resources to China
These objectives are supported by both parties, where they differ is in how to achieve them. How successful have we been?
1. A work in progress
2. 17-19 permanent bases built in Iraq
3. Libya and Syria behaving "better", signs are favorable elsewhere (such as Jordan)
4. China has been forced to deal with Africa and Russia instead. So the goal was achieved but the effect of limiting China's access to oil was not.
When a "withdrawal" plan is finally underway it will not mean bringing all the troops home, but, rather, deploying them to the recently completed bases as well as others that have been set up in the region. Listen carefully to what Murtha says, for example, he doesn't talk of withdrawal, but of "redeployment".
The debate over "permanent" bases is just over the framing of the issue. If the US is "invited" to stay at the new Iraqi bases until things have "stabilized" we won't be using the bases "permanently". Notice that we still have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea. These deployments are now 50-60 years old.
This is also the goal for the middle east.
Posted by robertdfeinman at January 21, 2007 07:45 AMI've always been open to such suggestions of careful tactics, Richard.
As I've noted before, there's always a good rational reason the Democrats don't call for an end to the war.
It has now gone on longer than WWII, incredibly, but we must keep on. Always, the war must continue.
At some point one just stops listening to the bullshit, which is what the rationalizations are for continuing the war. Not calling for the end of the war is weak obsequiousness. End of story.
Posted by paradox at January 21, 2007 07:51 AMWelcome to Groundhog Day, in which Republicans are now in charge of the war but the plot is the same.
"I don't want to be the first American President to lose a war" - Lyndon Johnson (paraphrased).
DeanOR in the United States of Amnesia
The Congressional Democrats are cowards. End of story.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 07:55 AMParadox
Extremely well said. One wonders how many more American troops have to die- perhaps 55,000 more, to roughly equal the number killed in a place called Vietnam?- and how many more have to end up seriously wounded and maimed and crippled before neoconservatives and so-called liberals will finally call for the immediate withdrawal of those troops from that abattoir in Iraq.
Posted by Erroll at January 21, 2007 08:00 AMthey can make their choice like we do. they don't do it for rational reasons, obviously. they care only about being re elected. they forget what the people want, because they can only remember what the corporations want.
but as to the MSM, what is becoming more and more obvious, they no longer bring any news at all. they cover events yes, but the people and the institutions of MSM are so like the military, only speak if the rank above them says it is okay, do what they are told, etc.. this is making what they do less and less important, and they are aware of it. They keep trying to be important, but don't most of you find that the things they say are offensive, partially true or complete, or mostly fluff pieces made for people that watch american idol? they know they are becoming marginal and they have gone to entertainment.
I don't like mixing entertainment with temporal reality of now, so I have abandoned these sources for anything except the following of a major story. hard part about that is, as soon as the story breaks, they are at the entertainment part again. they send in "analysts" that don't know anything because they aren't part of the situation, but they are propped up by the label of MSM and then they entertain.
don't you find that all the people on the news that report an event are the toadies that live for "dirty laundry"? there are some great pundits for their respective causes, but they too are part of an entertainment cycle, for we look to the clock and channel to see what they say.
alas, what we get is all the bull that is fit to print, or blather about. in the end game, it is drivel created for people that want drivel. only one way to make it change, ignore it. if you stop picking a scab, it usually heals
Posted by oldtree at January 21, 2007 08:19 AMMany good comments here.
The one point or perhaps angle I want to take here is that The Decider-Educator-in-Chief with one wreckless move in announcing his Escalation Plan , has moved the current debate toward terms that more favorable for him and his Perpetual War Policies. He has (hopefully on temporarily)moved most of the discussion away from drawing down or redeployment of troops over to whether we should or shouldn't add more troops. I know at least that debate is better than any that may have occurred under the Rubberstamp Republican 109th congress and I can't imagine what he would have done if Democrats hadn't won both houses of Congress...but unfortunately for many of us here it is obvious that public opinion has already hardened against this Failed Misadventure in the Mideast and is lightyears ahead of the corporate controlled media-pundit-political world. We are left just sitting and strongly voicing those opinions to those people just waiting for them to catch-up to what the average American has already learned and figured out on our own in spite of them.
Posted by emal at January 21, 2007 08:44 AMTed Kennedy was absolutely great on CBS this morning (Sun). Although he himself voted against this war from the beginning, the point that he kept hammering home is that this war has been lost because this president has screwed up, over and over and over again, in spite of extraodinarily competent troops, that this is far from the first "surge", the rest have been unsuccessful, so why should we expect anything different now? This is EXACTLY the point that I would think ALL democrats could rally around, whether they are for or against this war. This president is a miserable failure. He will always be a miserable failure. Stop enabling him.
Excellent interview. Damn, he would make a great president.
Posted by Julie at January 21, 2007 09:18 AMSomeone above mentioned that this has gone on longer than WW II, and that brought some disturbing thoughts to my mind. In both Japan and Germany, we fire-bombed those cities to the ground. In Japan, we used atom bombs. This is what it took to break the will of the opposition. This is what it took to bring peace.
In today's "politically correct" wars, we're not willing to do that. Wars are ugly. Wars are horror shows. Wars are about killing people. Wars are about destroying the enemy.
What we seem to be doing over in the Middle East is some sort of peaceful coexistance type of war, where we don't kill people but instead try to install a government as a mechanism of law and order. Doesn't seem to be working.
Back to firebombing?
(Not recommending it, just wondering if our tactics for new wars are all wrong and if we should go back to the tactics of old wars and asking, are we really willing to do what it takes to win a war?)
Posted by muckdog at January 21, 2007 09:44 AM
The war will end when one side or the other declares that enough bodies have been opened up.
h
Posted by h at January 21, 2007 09:50 AMJulie, not only was Kennedy great, but so was Biden. Both seem to have a mantra now, that I suspect will continue to be repeated, that Bush was wrong, wrong, wrong on the war. Biden went on to say that not only was Bush wrong, but he listened/listens to Dick Cheney, who has also been wrong, wrong, wrong on the war. Biden suggested that Bush needs to stop listening to Cheney who has never been right about anything pertaining to this failed war.
OT, but evidently Karl Rove has never left the WH and continues to be Bush's righthand man. He has managed (with the MSM help, of course) to stay out of the news, but he's still bending the ear of the Commander Codpiece. Newsweek has the article.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2007 10:35 AMWell muck fuck it wasn't enough for you to show your complete ignorance on global warming on another thread now you are an apologist for indiscriminate firebombing and nuclear war..and you expect anyone to believe your bullshit?
Posted by headxray at January 21, 2007 11:29 AMpuppyboy....one word about your non advocating but just bringing it up for discussion nonsense....Fallujah...nuff said.
Posted by emal at January 21, 2007 11:45 AM
So saith Muck: "In Japan, we used atom bombs. "
Ah, but here's the thing, Mr. Muckrat: The notion that the US used the atom bomb against the Japanese in order to end the war and thus prevent further bloodshed is a myth.
The Japanese had already communicated their wish to surrender to the US, but we wanted to hit the Soviet Union over the head with our might.
It was the opening shot in the Cold War.
Posted by h at January 21, 2007 11:53 AMmuckdog said: "Back to firebombing? (Not recommending it, just wondering if our tactics for new wars are all wrong and if we should go back to the tactics of old wars and asking, are we really willing to do what it takes to win a war?)"
That would be totally insane and immoral. No, we're not willing, and we should not be willing.
But I agree that a radical solution is needed.
Here is one to consider from the treasured documents of the US national archive, not just for the 4th of July:
" — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
Tell me if there is any other way, realistically, if we can not get impeachment, and soon. Or are we just going to go on tolerating torture, mass killing, the loss of our liberty and our wealth, and disgrace ourselves even further?
Where do we draw the line, is it Iran? What will it take? When we fought back hard, Johnson gave up seeking another term, Nixon resigned. What will Bush do? I think it would be hideous to let it go on until 2009, and who knows what will happen then anyway?
h, uh, what's your documentation for your claim that the Japanese had already offered to surrender? Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration asking for unconditional surrender shortly before the bombing of Hiroshima.
Posted by Reed Richards at January 21, 2007 12:10 PMBack to firebombing?
Muckdog, one of the risks of using the rationale for pre-emptive invasion of a country is that the country attacked has not declared itself to be an enemy, may not consider itself your enemy. This means that it is imperative that the need for pre-emptive action is not only valid but also of extreme danger to you, that the targetted population is in fact your enemy. Iraq's "enemy" status was a figment of Bush's dysfunctional imagination. I'm just shaking my head at all the excuses that have been used to prop up the reason for pre-emption, and now for continuing the occupation. The "reasons" keep changing because the reason used before was shown to be a crock, excuse after excuse. We are now down to the excuse for staying being that we have so fucked up the country that now we need to stay in there and protect the country from itself. ~ahem~
..and if we should go back to the tactics of old wars and asking, are we really willing to do what it takes to win a war?
(Sounds like what the British must have been asking themselves back during the American Revolution.) You're confused, hun. This is now not a war, it is an occupation. You do not "win" an occupation, not nowadays. Wars need an enemy, occupations need a population willing to be occupied. How do you in good conscience firebomb a population that just wants you to mind your own business? This is now an occupation, complicated by an insurgency, complicated by a civil war, complicated by increasing risk of regional instability. The longer we stay, the longer the list gets.
As Ed Luttwak would probably say, we outstayed our success. What we're seeing now is Bush trying to make his mistakes not look like mistakes. He mis-identified the enemy, and he mis-managed the conclusion of the invasion. Our Congress is enabling him.
Judith, I missed the Biden interview. Wish I had caught it.
Posted by Julie at January 21, 2007 12:22 PMIn Japan, we used atom bombs.
muck, There is enough Depleted Uranium in Iraq to consider it radioactive.
What we seem to be doing over in the Middle East is some sort of peaceful coexistance type of war, where we don't kill people but instead try to install a government as a mechanism of law and order.
Over 650,000 dead Iraqi's? muck, take your head out of your ass please.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 21, 2007 01:18 PM"Where do we draw the line, is it Iran?"
DeanOR, one hopes it would be Iran, but I have my doubts.
" — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.... it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government..."
Thanks for reminding us that we have a DUTY and a RIGHT to end this nonsense.
I did catch McCain this morning, though, Judith. Man, he looked like something was really wrong with him. Any rumors, maybe about his health or something? He looked really pitiful. Lifeless, extremely so, and pastey. It was so odd.
It was painful to have to listen to him saying that we never had to fear the Vietnamese coming over here after us when we left, but it's different with Iraq because now we should fear the Iraqis coming over to get us. On second thought, maybe I would feel pretty sick, too, having to dish out that kind of rhetoric.
Posted by Julie at January 21, 2007 01:37 PM
From Reed Richards: "h, uh, what's your documentation for your claim that the Japanese had already offered to surrender? Japan rejected the Potsdam Declaration asking for unconditional surrender shortly before the bombing of Hiroshima."
According to Truman himself, the Emperor on July 18, 1945, sent a letter to the president in which, so said Truman, Japan was "looking for peace."
There is other documentation for this point of view.
You might want to read Alperovitz's "Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb: And the Architecture of an American Myth."
From another source:
United States Strategic Bombing Survey states: "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms." The Survey also states: "On 10 July [1945] the Emperor again urged haste in the moves to mediate through Russia, but Potsdam intervened. While the government still awaited a Russian answer, the Hiroshima bomb was dropped on 6 August."
The Survey concluded: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
As for unconditional surrender, well, the Emperor remained at the helm, didn't he?
I grew up in the Fifties watching old war newsreels, and I must say they didn't have the desired effect of turning me into a little warmonger.
Actually, they helped turn me into a lifelong skeptic on the subject of war--no, not quite a pacifist but a skeptic.
And so I have remained.
I remember as a child asking my mother why we bombed Japan, and of course she replied with the usual received opinion.
She also had a corollary: War is handy for helping to reduce world population when necessary.
Need I mention she was a lifelong Republican?
h
Posted by h at January 21, 2007 04:41 PMJulie, not only did he appear lifeless, but it seemed that his energy was gone. It also seemed that just speaking was taking it's toll.
I had forgotten that he actually had the balls to make the comment about Iraqis coming here to kill Americans. He is digging the ditch deeper for himself, and I question his mental health now.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2007 05:01 PMIn both Japan and Germany, we fire-bombed those cities to the ground. In Japan, we used atom bombs.
Yes, a thousand times yes. We turned Fallujah into a tent city and look at how well it subdued the population. 15 year-old boys holding Kalashnikovs. Their eyes older than my father's when he died, and with the 1000-yard-stare of Vietnam veterans. Yes, a thousand times yes. Let's turn their rubble cities into charred rubble. I doubt 15 year-old boys who are veterans of four years of war will be a problem. Yes, a thousand times yes. Your wish was fulfilled, my son, and you never even knew it. Lack of inquisitiveness is not a good trait.
Posted by phidipides at January 21, 2007 07:45 PMOne way to break the media support for the war is to break-up Big Media.
Rep Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) is reintroducing the Media Ownership Reform Act in the House Energy and Commerce Committe within the next couple of weeks.
See article in Raw Story for details.
Hinchey for president!!! He shows true analytical skills by knowing how to get to the heart of the problem. The ONLY way the Republicans have been so successful the last couple of decades has been their acquisition of control of the corporate media, as well as changing the anti-monopoly rules for media corporations with the help of people like Colonoscopy Powell's son Michael (?). This Media Ownership Reform Act is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Dems will hopefully address in the next two years.
Posted by Julie at January 22, 2007 06:40 AM>The Congressional Democrats are cowards. End of story.
Posted by Christopher at January 21, 2007 07:55 AM
And The Congressional Repubican'ts are evil a$$holes killing american soldiers for oil. End of story.
So what's the answer? Firebomb DC?
Posted by (: Tom :) at January 22, 2007 11:52 AM