Will W meet Cindy Sheehan

[mburbank]

I'll admit it's a no win situation, but if he won't go see this woman, who's son died in Iraq and is now waiting by the side of the road in brutal heat, he's not a man.

There's nothing he can take away fom this meeting that would in any way help his standing and it can't benefit him politically. With each day that goes by, any chance he might have of looking like seeing her is anything sincere.

But she's there and she's waiting and if he can't take time off from a five week vacation to go see her, than he's not a Christian, He's not a man, he's not even human.

A lot of people have sacrficed for this war. He might not gain anything from seeing Cindy Sheehan. But it's not like she's asking him to sacrafice what her son has, or what she has.

[sadie]

she sounds like a crazy bitch i wouldn't want to meet with either. last year, she described her meeting with the president in glowing terms; now, she's saying he was all rude and shit.

[El Blanco]

A President can't do that. Its simply not done. They don't go to the funerals or anything like that. The most they do is visit the hospitals.

What is he supposed to say? What makes her so special out of the thousands of others who have sacrificed?

How does this make him nto a man or not human?

[mburbank]

Here's an exeprt from Ms. Sheehan's speech to the Vets For Peace convention. She can be a little strident for my tastes, but as a parent I want to tell you, even the idea of loosing a child can make you a little crazy. Plus, stridency asie, she calls W. a liar, and I think it's way past time to be doing that, calla spade a damn spade.

She wants to yell at W in person. Who could blame her? If W, had the least little bit of spine or humanity, he'd let her. He's the commander in chief, no matter who else signed off on it, this is his war, a war he claims to believe strongly in. he can't take an hour out of his vacation to face one of the ugly consequences of that war? He accepts the scarafice her son made and he can't face an angry mother for one hour of a five week vacation? Anyway, here's the speech:


" I never heard about Veterans For Peace until, I can tell you the exact day I heard about VFP, it was May 4th, 2004, and my son had been dead exactly a month, and I was watching CNN, and something came on - it was a report on Arlington West in Santa Barbara, and we lived about 6 hours north of Santa Barbara, and it was the May 4th before Mother's Day, which was May 8th, and VFP was going to put it up on Sunday, every Sunday - so I called my husband and I said, "There's only one place I want to be on Mother's Day this year, I want to be at Santa Barbara. I want to go and see Arlington West."

When we went, the first time we went, there were a little over 700 crosses. Now there are over 1,800 crosses.

And I'm glad to hear everybody else's words, because somebody's gotta stop those lying bastards. Somebody has to stop them.

I got an email yesterday - if you guys heard, I just had a story published called "Where Do I Live?" - it talks about an Iranian-American who got the shaft because a recruiter liked him, and the recruiter falsified his paperwork, so he ended up in prison.

He's been in prison since November without due process.

Another mother whose son was found dead in Iraq, they told her that he died from a drug overdose. Three months later, they got the toxicology report: no drugs. She was devastated. She said, "I know my son, he did not do drugs." She was told that her son's wife and his battle buddies said in a report that yes, her son abused drugs in Iraq. But when she got that report it said categorically that no, he did not abuse drugs. So how did her son die?

And then there's Kevin and Monica Benderman. Kevin did exactly the right thing and got 15 months in prison. Whereas, like Dahr [Jamail] said, the war criminals in Washington DC, they don't even lose a night's sleep.

Then we have this lying bastard, George Bush, taking a 5-week vacation in a time of war. You know what? I'm never going to get to enjoy another vacation, because of him.

My vacation probably ... this is really sad because I have a really cute dress I was going to wear to the banquet tomorrow night, but I'm either gonna be in jail or in a tent in Crawford, waiting until that jerk comes out and tells me why my son died.

Anyway, I got an email, I kinda got off track, a man emailed me yesterday, I get contacted by all kinds of people with their stories, and he said Cindy, I read everything you write, I read it on LewRockwell.com, he said, "I get tears in my eyes, but today I cried real tears, and I screamed, because my dear sweet nineteen ear-old cousin was killed in Iraq."

And he said, "Cindy, why didn't I save him? Why didn't I knock him out, why didn't I take him to Canada?" and I wrote him back and I said, "You know what? We all think that."

I said to my son not to go. I said, you know it's wrong, you know you're going over there. You know your unit might have to kill innocent people, you know you might die. And he says, "My buddies are going, I have to go." He said, "If I don't go, someone's going to have to do my job, and my buddies will be in danger."

So what really gets me is these chicken-hawks who sent our kids to die, without ever serving in a war themselves. They don't know what it's all about.

Thirty of our bravest young men have already died this month, and it's only the 5th of August. And the tragedy of the marines in Ohio is awful.

But do you guys remember back in March when we were having our 2nd year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, which was pre-empted by Terry Schiavo, so that's all that was on the news, not 5,000 of us in Fayetteville. Wolf Blitzer said it was insignificant, but they put Terry Schiavo on, and I wrote something then called "The Amazing Hypocrites" and I asked, why does she deserve life more than my son, and the Iraqi people? And more than the other people that this war has killed.

But do you think George Bush will interrupt his vacation and go visit the families of those 20 marines who have died in Ohio this week? No, because he doesn't care, he doesn't have a heart. That's not enough to stop his little "playing cowboy" game in Crawford for 5 weeks.

So, as you can imagine, the grieving parents who lost - lost, I don't like to use that word - whose child was murdered, it's extremely difficult, you can't even get a small scab on our wound, because every day it rips open. Every day, I don't know why I do it because I already know that war is ugly, I already know that war is hard. But I open up the DOD site to see who became an angel while I was sleeping.

And that rips my heart open, because I know there is another mother whose life is going to be ruined that day. So we can't even begin to heal.

So anyway that filth-spewer and warmonger George Bush was speaking after the tragedy of the marines in Ohio, he said a couple things that outraged me.

Seriously outraged me.

And I know I don't look like I'm outraged, I'm always so calm and everything, that's because if I started hitting something, I wouldn't stop 'til it was dead. So I can't even start, cause I know how dangerous that would be, but George Bush was talking, and he never mentioned the terrible incident of those marines, but he did say that the families of the ones who have been killed can rest assured that their loved ones died for a noble cause.

And he also said, he says this often, and this really drives me crazy, he said that we have to stay in Iraq and complete the mission, to honor the sacrifices of the ones who have fallen.

And I say, why should I want one more mother to go through what I've gone through, because my son is dead. You know what, the only way he can honor my son's sacrifice is to bring the rest of the troops home. To make my son's death count for peace and love, and not war and hatred like he stands for.

I don't want him using my son's death or my family's sacrifice to continue the killing. I don't want him to exploit the honor of my son and others to continue the killing. They sent these honorable people to die, and are so dishonorable themselves.

So, as many of you have heard, and I didn't mean to cause any problems with the convention, but I was writing an email to everybody, and I was so mad, like I said, and I just had this brainstorm, I'm going to Dallas, I don't know where Crawford is. I've been in Texas, Casey was stationed at Fort Hood. I drove from northern California to Fort Hood one time - it took, like, 30 hours. And I thought, I could be driving for days to get from Dallas to Crawford!

But I don't care, I'm goin'. And I'm gonna tell them, "You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody whose blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

And I'm gonna say, "OK, listen here, George. #1, you quit, and I demand - every time you get out there and say you're going to continue the killing in Iraq to honor the fallen heroes by continuing the mission - you say, except Casey Sheehan.'"

"And you say, except for all the members of 'Gold Star Families for Peace' cuz we think not one drop of blood should be spilled in our families' names. You quit doing that. You don't have my permission."

And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say "freedom and democracy," I'm gonna say "bullshit."

You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy. "

[El Blanco]

So, she just wants to yell at him.

She has my sympathy and I can't imagine the pain she feels, but she is just wrong here. No emotional plea, no horrible circumstance can change that she cannot rightfully expect a private audience just so she can scream and curse at him.

[AChimp]

Blanco is right. If Bush met with this person, then he'd have to meet with every Tom, Dick and Harry that had a beef. You know there'd be people petitioning the president to settle property disputes, etc.

[mburbank]

She can't 'expect' anything. She can ask, and she can protest in such a way that his refusal makes it costly for him, which is exactly what she's doing. Concidering what she's been cost, I think it's fair, and I don't think W is doing himself any favors by not seeing her.

As for the Tom Dick and Harry angle, if W was smart (I know, funny sentence, right?) He go let Sheehan cuss him out as proxy for every grieving relative who wants to cuss him out. And he'd stand there and take it.

For once, a tiny little person has the President of the worlds only super power over a barrel.

[El Blanco]

She can't 'expect' anything. She can ask, and she can protest in such a way that his refusal makes it costly for him, which is exactly what she's doing. Concidering what she's been cost, I think it's fair, and I don't think W is doing himself any favors by not seeing her.

What every family who as ever sent a son or daughter to war has been cost.

What will be gained by him going there?

As for the Tom Dick and Harry angle, if W was smart (I know, funny sentence, right?)

And thats what this is about isn't it? You gave up on right and wrong long ago, Max. You've just dropped down to just taking a cheap shot every chance you get and you see this as yet another way to make yourself feel good about being morally superior to Bush.

He go let Sheehan cuss him out as proxy for every grieving relative who wants to cuss him out. And he'd stand there and take it.

Great, then we can get all the living preseidents and congressmen and all other lawmakers to stand there while eveyrone who has a gripe with a policy yel lat them.

White guys who think affirmative action cost them their jobs.

Relatives of drug dealers doing prison time.

Families of all the soldiers who died over seas in a conflict they didn't vote for.

Maybe someone who's pet program lost money to the NEA.

How long do you think this list can get?


For once, a tiny little person has the President of the worlds only super power over a barrel.

And this is good?

[mburbank]

"What every family who as ever sent a son or daughter to war has been cost. "

I disagree. Dieing defending your country is one thing. Dieing in a war of agression is something altogether different.

"What will be gained by him going there? "
By whom? Her goal is to make an attempt to bring the war home to him. I think forcing him to look her in the eye and acknowledge real tragedy, real people, real blood spilt OR make him refuse might move more give force to the growing anti war sentiment, it might get us out of Iraq faster and maybe a few more kids, both ours and theirs wouldn't die. I think what she wants is for other mothers not to go through what she's going through. It's a protest, and I think it's working.

If I felt good about feeling morally superior to Bush I'd be awash in happiness all the time. I assure you, I'm not. Don't tell me what's rigt or wrong. My strongly held belief is that this war is wrong and we invaded over lies that maybe, MAYBE W believed, but I don't think Rummy or Chenney or Wolwowitz or any of the others believed for a moment, or even cared about. THAT's wrong. Being unable to account for 9.5 Billion dollars and calling yourself the party of fiscal repsonsability, THAT's wrong. Torture is wrong, rendition is wrong, giving the President to declare someone an enemy combatant and vanish them is wrong, spending billions more on missile defense than on preparing for the next flu pandemic, when one is flat out impossible and the other is a statistical inevitability, that WRONG. And pointless wars that never had to begin with no exit stragtegy are really, really, relly wrong. Those are the wrong things I care about. W. makes Nixon look like a Sunday school picnic.

"Great, then we can get all the living preseidents and congressmen and all other lawmakers to stand there while eveyrone who has a gripe with a policy yel lat them."

No, see, a gripe, that's how I feel about the sullen whitehouse monkey taking more vacation time in a year than most working folks get in a decade. Sure, I'd love to tell him personally that I think his fauz cowboy act is a nauseating farce, but I don't really feel I have that coming to me. Now if on of my kids gets killed in an unjust war that his administration lies about every day, that could possibly rise above the level of a 'gripe'. And unlike her kids trip to Iraq which once he joined the army he had no choice about, W may have signed up to be President, but he doesn't have to go see a woman just 'cause her son got killed and she's waiting in a ditch near his Ranch while he takes five weeks of R and R. That's his choice.

White guys who think affirmative action cost them their jobs don't have dead kids.

Relatives of drug dealers doing prison time might get to watch their kids grow up.

someone who's pet program lost money to the NEA might one day dance at their sons wedding.

Families of all the soldiers who died over seas in a conflict they didn't vote for... I think maybe they can ask. I don't think asking is very big compared to never having grandchildren.

So you see, it's not such a long list. Just people who've suffered the very worst loss imaginable. I would much rather die than see my kids die. I think most parents would feel the same, even if they think dieing in Iraq is noble. I think Cyndi Sheehan is trying to make the raw horror of war come home in a viceral way to as many people as she possibly can, starting with the commander in cheif.

You want to tell me you don't agree with what I think of as right and wrong, you be my guest. But I'm pretty sure I haven't given up just yet.

And yeah. I think it's good that one American Citizen in their suffering has a bully pulpit for a week. She didn't go to Yale, she wasn't born rich, her dad was never president, she's not even Jennifer Anniston and yet through chance and timing she's got the countries ear. If she was selling Amway on her fifteen minutes of fame, I wouldn't think it was so great. But she's not. She's doing what she can to make this war more real to people, hoping against hope it might bring a few more kids home alive than if she did nothing. I think it's better than good. I think it's wonderful.

[El Blanco]

I disagree. Dieing defending your country is one thing. Dieing in a war of agression is something altogether different.

We're going to have to disagree on that.

By whom?

The country as a whole.

Her goal is to make an attempt to bring the war home to him.

Ya, because all the thousands of prtotestors outside his home and office and around the world, the thousands of hate letters, the TV commentary really don't cover it.

I think forcing him to look her in the eye and acknowledge real tragedy, real people, real blood spilt OR make him refuse might move more give force to the growing anti war sentiment,

I don't want desiscions like this made on emotion.

it might get us out of Iraq faster and maybe a few more kids, both ours and theirs wouldn't die. I think what she wants is for other mothers not to go through what she's going through. It's a protest, and I think it's working.

"here is a crying hysterical woman outside, and I'm goign to let her dictate our foreign policy."

That about sum up what you hope she accomplishes?


And unlike her kids trip to Iraq which once he joined the army he had no choice about,

He chose to join the army. Its no secret they can be deployed to God-knows-where at a moments notice. Do you get to decide everything you do at work?

White guys who think affirmative action cost them their jobs don't have dead kids.

So sending your kids to bed hungry because you can't afford dinner is no big deal. Gotcha.

Relatives of drug dealers doing prison time might get to watch their kids grow up.

And relatives of soldiers already got to see their kids grow up.

Of course, the prisoner may be killed in prison or come out after the few decades a shell of their former self.


Families of all the soldiers who died over seas in a conflict they didn't vote for... I think maybe they can ask. I don't think asking is very big compared to never having grandchildren.

Ask for what? A special privalege that has never been granted. And with damn good reason.

So you see, it's not such a long list.

Sure, when you refuse to acknowledge them.

Just people who've suffered the very worst loss imaginable. I would much rather die than see my kids die. I think most parents would feel the same, even if they think dieing in Iraq is noble. I think Cyndi Sheehan is trying to make the raw horror of war come home in a viceral way to as many people as she possibly can, starting with the commander in cheif.

You think people don't know that war involves death? You think I'm not worried about my cousins over there?

I am, but I know what shit like this is going to do.

Its going to appeal to people's fear and make us weekkneed. Thats going to cause us to half ass these operations and get more people killed in more places. More people like my cousins and more people like her son.

You know whats worse than starting a fight?

Not finishing it.

Like it or not, this fight is on and we are there. By leaving early before there is stability there, we are only going to make the situation worse.

I don't think you want us to just pull up stakes and leave a nice big power vacuum there. Or are you too worried that people will die today?



And yeah. I think it's good that one American Citizen in their suffering has a bully pulpit for a week. She didn't go to Yale, she wasn't born rich, her dad was never president, she's not even Jennifer Anniston and yet through chance and timing she's got the countries ear. If she was selling Amway on her fifteen minutes of fame, I wouldn't think it was so great. But she's not. She's doing what she can to make this war more real to people, hoping against hope it might bring a few more kids home alive than if she did nothing. I think it's better than good. I think it's wonderful.

If she was pissed about why we are there or how we are going about things, ya. But she seems to be pissed because her son died. Thats when she started showing up to protests.

As I said, she has my sympathy and I won't spit a bullshit line like I know how she sfeels, but this is simply the wrong course of action.

[mburbank]

Briefly; We didn't finish the fight in Vietnam, because it was a bad fight. The world did not come to an end, the domino effect never happened and we're trading partners with Vietnam now.

Heaven forfend we should ever be percieved as week kneed. We should always win even unwinable fights even if we were totally wrong to start them.

The world will see our strong knees if more of us die, because we'll kill more of them along the way and that's how you tell who has the strongest knees. If enough people die some day everyone will know we have the strongest knees of all and war will end. The noble cause our soldiers die for is the fabled strength of America's knees which will obe day through their sheer grandeur enforce a Pax Americana.

[El Blanco]

Hey, Max, how important is Vietnam to the world economy?

Are they whole sale producing suicide bombers?

And mock it all you want, but you cannot honestly deny that "power perceived is power achieved".

The value we have for human life and distaste for fighting....well, to them, thats a weakness. By pulling out before the job is done, we will become the paper tiger they keep calling us.

That means that all they will need to get whatever they want is to come out and kill a few people for the cameras. Because they will know we aren't willing to shed a drop blood today to save a pint tomorrow.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

So when we pull out of Iraq, and it falls to radical Islam, can we send all of the mothers of the next terrorist victims to Ms. Sheehan's house?

Of course you feel terrible for this woman. I personally wish her son never had to go to Iraq. BUT, he was going to go somewhere to fight this war, be it Iraq, or somewhere else. Would she (or even you Max, for that matter) have felt better if he died on Saudi soil, or in Iran or Pakistan?

Whether we like it or not, the war now is in Iraq, and if we withdraw, many more Casey Sheehans will die. And it won't be those who signed up to go get the fight, but rather, those going to work in the morning on a subway, or flying overseas. It'll be men, women, children, and the elderly.

I think people like us should be grateful to Casey Sheehan, while we also understand the motives of a mother who has lost her son.

It is, however, worth mentioning that other members of the Sheehan family aren't as understanding of Cindy:

http://sacunion.com/pages/sacramento/articles/5895

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Not to toot my own horn, but Chris Matthews asked Ms. Sheehan the same question i asked in this thread. Here was her response:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8972147/

MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

SHEEHAN: Yes.

MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

SHEEHAN: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We're fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we're saying. But they're not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.


MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.
--

Okay, so I'm becoming more and more convinced that this woman is an idiot, which is unfortunate, because partisan groups have turned her into a spokeswoman. It usually helps to have good ones. So we need to do arbitrary things like go after Bin Laden and go after Al Qaeda, but we need to do it without touching the soil they might be hiding on. :rolleyes

So if we were to just toss smart bombs at these countries, would she be happy with that? Or what if the CIA just went in and started bumping people off strategically? Would she support that?

I also feel bad for her, because she is now being used for the death of her son. I think she may truly look back at this and regret it down the road.

[Nom]

So, she just wants to yell at him.

She has my sympathy and I can't imagine the pain she feels, but she is just wrong here. No emotional plea, no horrible circumstance can change that she cannot rightfully expect a private audience just so she can scream and curse at him.Fortunately, it’s not really about actually getting his audience. It’s about casting dispersions. Bush’s actual stance is “my way or the highway”; and he is getting his way. Not that he had the original thought of invading Iraq - hardly. Oh no, that has been in the queue for a long time. I side with the sentiment that if he had a backbone, he’d stifle his counsel and face his detractors. Unfortunately enough to the minds of said counsel, in doing so, Bush would be compelled to utter real facts (or a reasonable facsimile) regarding the extremely complex (real) reasons for invading Iraq. God forbid he would have to ad lib an answer to the expected questions regarding the Downing street memo. Is there any wonder at all in assuming we’re on safe ground in visualizing this in particular as one thing his traitorous counsel would be and is most likely hush-hushing vigorously? Bush is credible by proxy; let’s hope the rest of ‘em have very good reasons for stretching their own credibility to its limits.

[El Blanco]

Que?

Its not about getting to see him? Then why is she there?

And where were these aspersions before her son was killed? When he voluntarily returned 3 times?

Where was her outrage? There was none until he died and the next mother's day came up.

She is in an emotional tailspin (its easy to see why) and things are going down the crapper for her (she and her husband divorced this year).

She needs lots of support and help. But, she can't get what she's demanding. She already got to see him and said nothing. She had her shot.

[theapportioner]

I think Sheehan is confounding the rightness or wrongness of going to war, with the rightness or wrongness of staying there to fix things up.

One can compare it to surgery. It may not be right to do, say, bariatric surgery on someone who is only slightly overweight. But once the surgery is in progress or complete, it would also be wrong to abandon the patient on the operating table, or deny that patient appropriate postoperative care.

Or, two wrongs don't make a right.

If I were Mrs. Sheehan, I would not demand that troops be pulled out prematurely, but that certain people should be impeached for their actions in going to war in the first place.

[Nom]

I think Sheehan is confounding the rightness or wrongness of going to war, with the rightness or wrongness of staying there to fix things up.

One can compare it to surgery. It may not be right to do, say, bariatric surgery on someone who is only slightly overweight. But once the surgery is in progress or complete, it would also be wrong to abandon the patient on the operating table, or deny that patient appropriate postoperative care.

Or, two wrongs don't make a right.

If I were Mrs. Sheehan, I would not demand that troops be pulled out prematurely, but that certain people should be impeached for their actions in going to war in the first place.I agree wholeheartedly; the focus should be on demanding accountability, and not on prematurely removing troops. But see, the issue IS the rightness or wrongness of going to war IN THE FIRST PLACE. That is what sets up the desire to have accountability. And, well, heck yeah - I’m sure this administration is perfectly ok with us discussing whether to bring home troops sooner than later; keeps the scrutiny off of them for another week... mmm... not that that's bad exactly?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The American people, presumably, knew just as much about this war last November as they did right now. We knew then that stockpiles of WMDs were not found, and that there was no clear link between Saddam and 9/11.

They still voted for the man. He won. Last year's election was the trial, and the American people voted not guilty. Calling for an impeachment now would look desparate, and that's precisely how the GOP would spin it. Sour grapes, Dems. can't win elected office, so they stir up impeachment hearings.

I think people are turning on this war, but that could've been predicted months ago. We love liberating and kicking ass, we don't like the after stuff so much. I don't however think that means they'd want to impeach the president.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Peter Beinart had (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701847_pf.html) a good piece on this today.

I tend to disagree with the Sheehan supporters, but I think he put it in a good way:

"In Iraq, by contrast, the government never assumed mass participation. In this era of the professional military, the war has affected many fewer people. And it is exposing cultural fissures not because Americans were asked to serve and refused, but because this time few Americans were even asked.

So a surrogate war has produced a surrogate antiwar movement. This time, mass protests would only cloud the issue. As the parent of a dead soldier, Sheehan has so much moral authority precisely because so few Americans (including so few of us who supported the war) risk sharing her plight."

[ScruU2wice]

I just think it's funny how after being president for 5 years, bush has been on vacation for almost 1 of them.

[nothing4buddha]

she left today so i guess it will never happen.

[Chojin]

she pulled out prematurely :<

[kellychaos]

We're in this thing to deep to take our ball and go home. It's time to finish it, go home and hold trial for the war criminals ... the american ones too.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

she left today so i guess it will never happen.

She said she plans on returning. What will everyone else do, wait until she comes back?

[El Blanco]

Find the next flavor of the week to get outraged over?

[mburbank]

Okay, I've been away for a week.

Apportioner, I would have been pleased if her quest was more centered on accountability.

Kevin, I would have and did feel differently about folks that died in Afghanistan up until the moment we opted out of Torah Borah and focused instead on Iraq. Ms. Sheehan and I would have parted ways. This does not mean, however, that I would accept the administrations word or the quality of their intelligence in future cases of who harbored terrorists or to what degree. Afghanistan was a very rare case. I don't have to agree with Sheehan across the board to be glad she put a little of the human cost into the spotlight for a little while. I was very pleased that she equated her suffering with the suffering of arabs, AKA colateral damage.

As for the "Well, we never should have done it but now we have to finish the job" argument, there's an element of truth in int, BUT... it all depends on what you think the 'job' is, and wether it can ever be 'finished'. I think the War on Terrorism or Against Global Extremism, or whatever crap the whitehouse PR department is calling it this week can never be won, which is it's foremost value to people who cannot envision an America without a cold war style villian to define themselves against. Iraq is very likely to become an Islamist, Iran style state with us right there, let alone if we leave. Maybe we should stay so that when we change the next regime we won't have to drive so far. If the job can never be done we are committing ourselves to a permanent presence, which would certainly account for the type of bases we're building.

The operation analogy strikes me this way. As opposed to elective surgery, I think it was a violent crime perpetrated against a nasty thug, but it should be noted just about the weakest thug in the gang. Just because it turns out the person who commited the crime has medical training doesn't make them the ideal guy to stop the internal bleeding.

If I thought our presence was doing more good than bad in Iraq, I'd be all for staying, and even if we started the war for all the wrong reasons, I'd think soldiers were dieing for a reason. I don't. I think our presence is making things worse. I think we make it look on daily basis as if the most bizarre claims of I slamist seperatist fanatics are true. I think we take people who have a strong dislike for the US and create an environment in which they can bloom into full fledged suicidal loonies. I think the best thing we could do for Iraq (and it's not a real good deal) is leave.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This does not mean, however, that I would accept the administrations word or the quality of their intelligence in future cases of who harbored terrorists or to what degree. Afghanistan was a very rare case. I don't have to agree with Sheehan across the board to be glad she put a little of the human cost into the spotlight for a little while. I was very pleased that she equated her suffering with the suffering of arabs, AKA colateral damage.

I think I agree, and I think it is true that since we have a professional military, coupled with a terribly distant president, there is a degree of disconnect between Iraq the reality, and Iraq the perception. We discussed this in apportioner's conscription thread, whether or not some kind of mandatory service would create greater accountability from the administration (i.e. Vietnam and JFK-- Nixon).

However, I think that lack of investment from the American people goes both ways. It's a fical attitude that makes it easy to both support a war one month and then denounce it a year later. Everyone knew that men and women would die, and I think most knew (particularly the military) that this wouldn't be a conventional war. We all knew the neo-cons were full of shit when they talked about roses and celebrations from Iraqis for their conquering heroes, but there was also a bit of realism from the Pentagon. Everyone knew that pushing democracy in Iraq would mean emancipating a traditionally oppressed majority in Iraq, the Shiites. Knowing this, we knew there'd be opposition from the Sunnis, as well as the Baathist Saddam loyalists. These are things that were predicted, and I don't think it's fair to even President Bush to say that this war is bad because soldiers are dying for a bad reason. Well, most Americans were okay with it at the time, and even though we never found those WMDs, a majority of Americans came out last November and declared that okay, too.

This war has become bad because it won't end fast enough. As we move further and further away from the day we invaded, the public will increasingly turn on the war. Sorry, but for me, it's too little too late. Where were you when thousands of people protested in cities across the country against this war? Now the war has become inconvenient, b/c the Iraqis won't just hurry up and democratize, and AMERICAN SOLDIERS have to die....! Forgive my condescension, but I would fear a country that allowed the whims of its people to entirely dictate foreign policy.

As for the "Well, we never should have done it but now we have to finish the job" argument, there's an element of truth in int, BUT... it all depends on what you think the 'job' is, and wether it can ever be 'finished'. I think the War on Terrorism or Against Global Extremism, or whatever crap the whitehouse PR department is calling it this week can never be won, which is it's foremost value to people who cannot envision an America without a cold war style villian to define themselves against. Iraq is very likely to become an Islamist, Iran style state with us right there, let alone if we leave.

I think you raise some very good points, but when did sober realism dictate your beliefs? I too hate hearing the Iraq invasion twisted into a humanitarian action, because we all know damn well that that was a secondary concern to this administration, if that.

BUT, Bush lies aside, this now IS a humanitarian effort. Iraq may never be a democracy that's friendly to the U.S., and yes, all we may do here is enable radical muslims to over-run another nation. But that's the risk in democracy, and that's what makes freedom truly dangerous and amazing at the same time. Look, we broke it, and it's our job to fix it.


If I thought our presence was doing more good than bad in Iraq, I'd be all for staying, and even if we started the war for all the wrong reasons, I'd think soldiers were dieing for a reason. I don't. I think our presence is making things worse. I think we make it look on daily basis as if the most bizarre claims of I slamist seperatist fanatics are true. I think we take people who have a strong dislike for the US and create an environment in which they can bloom into full fledged suicidal loonies. I think the best thing we could do for Iraq (and it's not a real good deal) is leave.

Well, I disagree. I think a terrorist who would kill aid workers and behead human beings relinquishes all rights to complain. I don't think Syrians, Iranians, and Baathists should be defining the argument here. If we pull out, you will see the same thing you're currently seeing in Gaza right now. Organizations like Hamas will take credit for it, and will know that it works to blow up buses with children on it. Kill some of their soldiers, bump off a few foreign ambassadors, behead some innocent people, and the Americans will run away with their tails tucked under their legs.

I think the president was wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and the invasion was wrong. But make no mistake, look at the "insurgents" flooding into Iraq from other countries. These aren't "minutemen," these are extremists, and they know damn well that Iraq is important. The war wasn't there, but it is now, and the consequences of not respecting that could be dire.

[mburbank]

Kevin, I agree with much of what you're saying. Here's where I think we may differ:

"we broke it, and it's our job to fix it. "

I felt that way for a while. It's a bad feeling, especially since the very people who did the breaking are in charge of the fixing. My question:

What do we mean by 'fixing'?

What will a 'fixed' Iraq look like? If they democratically intsall majority Sharia law and begin a Taliban style reign of terror, wil we concider it fixed? If the political situation clarifies into a 'legitimate' government fighting a civil war, would that be 'fixed'. or would we need to stay to prop up the government? Do we need to stay until there is both a legitmate democracy and a trustworthy and functional army and police force? That would certainly be 'fixed' to my mind, but I think our very presence will provent that from happening.

I'm not saying this isn't a god awful ugly mess. I'm saying I don't think we can make things anything but worse, and I'm saying I don't think we even have a plan to make things better and there's no possability of that plan forming before the next president takes office. "Stay the course" is not a plan.

I think the loss of lives on all sides is being exaserbated by our presence. I think the money we are spending, not only on the actual war, but on bribes, giveaways and throwaways would be far more realistically spent preparing for the next flu pandemic.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"we broke it, and it's our job to fix it. "

I felt that way for a while. It's a bad feeling, especially since the very people who did the breaking are in charge of the fixing.

Well, let's not go over board on this one. Yes, we went in and bombed a "stable" nation, but let's not forget that this was a savage dictatorship. He was a petty thug, he was at times our thug, and he was probably not a major threat to our own national security, but Saddam was in fact slime. His people are better off with him gone, no question.

What will a 'fixed' Iraq look like? If they democratically intsall majority Sharia law and begin a Taliban style reign of terror, wil we concider it fixed? If the political situation clarifies into a 'legitimate' government fighting a civil war, would that be 'fixed'. or would we need to stay to prop up the government? Do we need to stay until there is both a legitmate democracy and a trustworthy and functional army and police force?

I think we need to stay as long as necessary, because the result of us capitulating will most certainly be worse than right now. I'm fairly confident that the only thing even keeping the Kurds at the negotiating table is us. I think the only thing that can pull the Sunnis and the left-over Baathist-regime types into the process is our presence, because they know we wield the authority, we have the power, so we're the ones they're going to either fight with or negotiate with. I also think us being there will prevent the Shiites from taking pay back for years of oppression.

It took this nation 12 years to ratify the constitution. When it was in fact ratified, you a "nation" which was really just a collection of states, with their own militias, own currencies, own culture, and their own identity. It wasn't an easy process, and we made a LOT of mistakes, many which we would pay for in later decades with civil war and civil unrest.

And, IMO, we had it easier than these Iraqis do! All these people have known, all of their lives, is oppression, corruption, and tyranny. They have multiple outside forces who want to see them fail. They have extremely radical elements permeating throughout the country, trying to sabotage the entire process.

So, will there be a perfect solution anytime soon? Probably not. Sucks, right? However, that doesn't mean we should leave. I think there are some conditions that would help speed the process up: More support militarily from other nations, a greater UN presence in the region, a greater Arab presence in the region, i.e. countries like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon, as well as full border control on the part of some of those nations, not of course forgetting Syria and Iran

I'm saying I don't think we can make things anything but worse, and I'm saying I don't think we even have a plan to make things better and there's no possability of that plan forming before the next president takes office. "Stay the course" is not a plan.

I agree, and I think the prez has been weak on this. But let's be fair, if the prez continued to hammer the war drum, to talk over and over about where we were in Iraq, then the Left would just call it distractionary tactics, and they'd still find a way to criticize him.

We do need a plan. I'm a goals setting sort of guy. I like planners and microsoft outlook. I like setting timelines and objectives, because whether or not you actually meet them, you still know what is clearly expected of you every month, every week , and every day. This is not a good plan. This is "tell the Iraqis to get this done, let them sort it out, and we'll keep serving as moving targets."

But once again, let's be fair. If we were to take a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc., the extreme Left would call us imperialists, and MoveOn.org would probably make a fundraising ad out of it.

I think the loss of lives on all sides is being exaserbated by our presence. I think the money we are spending, not only on the actual war, but on bribes, giveaways and throwaways would be far more realistically spent preparing for the next flu pandemic.

i disagree. I think the only people to blame for the killing of children are the monsters who would target and kill children. You're right, as long as there is an obstacle (that being us) in their way, extremists will do what it takes to get us out of the way. That doesn't mean that we should.

[kellychaos]

It all amounts to a bunch of morons looking for a quick fix to a complex situation which took years in the festering. And now they're looking for a band-aid to make it all better. If the present administration had a reasonably competent state department, they would make peace with the rest of the world, cut their losses and walk away saying that they did the best the could do under the circumstances rather play this out as a continuing "war on terrorism" ... a war that will never be won under the current tact of a continuing occupational presence which builds resentment. How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil ... especially one that is barely over 200 years old?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If the present administration had a reasonably competent state department, they would make peace with the rest of the world, cut their losses and walk away saying that they did the best the could do under the circumstances rather play this out as a continuing "war on terrorism"

You can't really believe it would be that simple, do you? What would "making peace with the rest of the world" entail? And would that end terrorism? Unlikely.

... a war that will never be won under the current tact of a continuing occupational presence which builds resentment.

The war against terror, or whatever it's called now, isn't simply a war against terrorism ,which is merely a tactic. It's a tactic that is being commonly used by radical muslims, namely Al Qaeda. It is not an exclusively muslim problem, but it certainly is one that's permeating throughout the religion and culture.

"Making peace", withdrawing from the world, and feeling satisfied that we gave it the ol' college try, isn't gonna cut it. Al Qaeda declared war a long time ago, we just didn't really pay attention until 9/11.

It also isn't fair to say that our entire strategy consists of occupying Iraq. You're right, you can't win a war against a method of destruction. But you can go after the nation-states who would support these groups, and make sure that terrorists who want to harm innocent people don't have readily available resources.


How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil

Probably a little better than living under a twisted dictatorship.

... especially one that is barely over 200 years old?

I'm sorry, but this is totally irrelevant.

[kellychaos]

I'm not saying tto recoil into isolationism or that a war on terror is necessarily a bad thing when the right tact is taken. To me, well-placed surgical operations in critical locations/targets as they've done with us would be better than conventional warfare especially when you're not willing to pony up the amount of force that such a convenetional war should entail (think 1st Gulf War).

You don't think that it's a slap in the face to a country with about 5,000 years of recorded history, one of the earliest civilizations on Earth, to be occupied by a country with little over 200 years as an established government. I'm thinking in terms of pride in relation to conflict resolution here. Relevant n'est-ce pas?

How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil

Probably a little better than living under a twisted dictatorship.

The dictatorship is a known evil; however.

[kellychaos]

Oops!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You don't think that it's a slap in the face to a country with about 5,000 years of recorded history, one of the earliest civilizations on Earth, to be occupied by a country with little over 200 years as an established government. I'm thinking in terms of pride in relation to conflict resolution here. Relevant n'est-ce pas?

You're talking about a country that was established in the 20th Century, and although they have a long standing history, you're talking about people who consider their national identity secondary (or even less) to their cultural, ethnic, and religious identities.

Look, being occupied sucks, I'll grant that. But I don't think our age has much to do with it. i doubt it was easier to be occupied by the British and French simply cuz they had been around awhile.

[Ant10708]

You don't think that it's a slap in the face to a country with about 5,000 years of recorded history, one of the earliest civilizations on Earth, to be occupied by a country with little over 200 years as an established government. I'm thinking in terms of pride in relation to conflict resolution here. Relevant n'est-ce pas?

i'm sure your average Iraqi is far more concerned about employment, the safety of their families and themselves whenever they leave the house, and having electricity than getting all pissed off about a blow to their obviously weak national pride . All that voting and risking their lives was to show us how pissed they were that some 'n00bie' country was trying to tell a vet like Mesopotamia's current resident Iraq how to do shit?


'How would you feel if a foreign sovereignty were occupying our soil'

'Probably a little better than living under a twisted dictatorship. ' -Kevin


:)

Everything else you said too Kevin was dead on.

[mburbank]

Okay, so it took us 12 years to form a somewhat stable democracy. nd we were better positioned for it than maybe anybody on earth. It's hard stuff. So, you figure what for the Iraqis? Twenty four years? Thirty six years? Forever?

I think as long as we're their any form of government that forms that we support militarily looks llike our puppet wether it is or not. Puppets give insurgencies life.

And as thugish as sadaam was, his death toll is starting to look paltry compared to what they've got now. It's all very well for us to sit comfortably in America and say the Iraqis are better off without Sadaam. What do the Iraqis think? What would you think? "I may not have sanitary water or electricity or health care and there's a very good chance every time I walk out the door I won't come back in one piece, but thank God the dictator is gone and I can express myself freely."

I'm not being flip, I don't know. I would think the average Iraqi might well be developing a certain nostaligia for Sadaam.

It seems like a variation on the old "Destroying the vilage to save it".

We got good news and bad news. The good news is, we toppled your dictator and now you are free. The bad news is we failed to stop your country from crumbling in the process and we haven't got any real ideas about how to put it together again.

[El Blanco]

Okay, so it took us 12 years to form a somewhat stable democracy. nd we were better positioned for it than maybe anybody on earth. It's hard stuff. So, you figure what for the Iraqis? Twenty four years? Thirty six years? Forever?

Funny thing about people, we're kind of unpredictable. This makes setting a hard and fast timetable on this sort of thing not too easy.

Although, there is precedcent to help them along.

I think as long as we're their any form of government that forms that we support militarily looks llike our puppet wether it is or not. Puppets give insurgencies life.

And you're solution is.....

And as thugish as sadaam was, his death toll is starting to look paltry compared to what they've got now.


Don't suppose you have an actual survey to back that up. Some real numbers. Because we know Saddam killed millions.

It's all very well for us to sit comfortably in America and say the Iraqis are better off without Sadaam. What do the Iraqis think? What would you think? "I may not have sanitary water or electricity or health care and there's a very good chance every time I walk out the door I won't come back in one piece, but thank God the dictator is gone and I can express myself freely."

I'll try to find the document, but I saw some proof a while back that 95% of hospitals had full electricity and utilities and 80% had electricity and water was about the same..

I'm not being flip, I don't know. I would think the average Iraqi might well be developing a certain nostaligia for Sadaam.

Ya, right.



We got good news and bad news. The good news is, we toppled your dictator and now you are free. The bad news is we failed to stop your country from crumbling in the process and we haven't got any real ideas about how to put it together again.

So, there isn't a stable interim government? There isn't a constitution being written as we speak? There aren't free elections happening?

[ziggytrix]

But once again, let's be fair. If we were to take a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc., the extreme Left would call us imperialists, and MoveOn.org would probably make a fundraising ad out of it.


Oh no! If we make moves to get our shit together some people might say some bad things?!!? Curse you partisan politics! Curse you!!

[Ant10708]

I think he was trying to make the point people would be bitching no matter what.

[Ant10708]

So, there isn't a stable interim government? There isn't a constitution being written as we speak? There aren't free elections happening? Its pure chaos! We should leave immediatly! We can't win this battle! All those Iraqis going out to vote was really just their way of saying we want saddam back in power.


The average Iraqi Shitte and Kurd would probaly rather have America occupy Iraq and pour menstration blood all over their holy relics for the rest of time than have Saddam back in power. So maybe its just your average Sunni minority that is wishing for the good ol' days of Saddam.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think he was trying to make the point people would be bitching no matter what.

Shh! Leave Ziggy alone, Ant! He isn't responsible for following the conversation! >:

But yes, that was essentially my point. I'm actually all in favor of a more intrusive role in the development of this constitution.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

We got good news and bad news. The good news is, we toppled your dictator and now you are free. The bad news is we failed to stop your country from crumbling in the process and we haven't got any real ideas about how to put it together again.

Isn't this a tad bit condescending? I mean, are these children we're dealing with, or are they full-grown doctors, lawyers, architects, teachers, and scientists? Don't the Iraqi people have at least a tiny stake in fighting against terorism and insurgents who want to damage their future?

The biggest obstacle, in my mind, is that for the first time in their lives, the Iraqi people are being asked to make their future what they want of it. You can say what you want about puppets and such, but these differing tribes and sects of islam are being asked to compromise and make a pact.

It's hard because it should be hard. We can place as many troops over there as we like, but until the Iraqi PEOPLE decide that they all have a collective stake in ending terrorism, curbing extremism, and building a functional government, then we will always be the "imperialists."

[mburbank]

You make my argument for us leaving. They don't have a tiny stake, they have the ONLY legitimate stake. IF we could set up an actual international coalition with us doing some funding but no killing, the insurgents would loose the steady stream of recruits we provide them with.

Blanc, I'll dig up the numbers after I meet my next deadline, but the stats I read were Sadaam, approx 250 violent deaths a month, current state of near civil war upwards of a thousand a month.

I AM NOT PRO-SADAAM.

But I also think it is Republican dogma which a lot of people have swallowed that nothing no matter how awful woould be worse for the people of Iraq than Sadaam was. What would it take to even concider the possability we've made things worse? Would an all out civil war be worse? Would total anarchy be worse? Would an Iraqi version of the Taliban be worse?

I also reject the idea that just because it's concieveable things are worse this is somehow an endorsement of Baathism.

If someone comes into the dentist needing a root canal and the dentists rips every tooth out of his head, the patient may feel cheated and STILL not join the rotten tooth fan club.

And Blanco, this stable government with the full support of the worlds only remaining super power cannot secure the road from the airport to the capitol. I think those swallowing the whole "It took our nation twelve years" line would be hard pressed to see a paralell there.

[ziggytrix]

Shh! Leave Ziggy alone, Ant! He isn't responsible for following the conversation! >:

But yes, that was essentially my point. I'm actually all in favor of a more intrusive role in the development of this constitution.

Fuck you Kevin. :) My point was this administration "does not care about polls" so liberals bitching should the last excuse they have for not getting something done.

The reason we haven't taken "a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc.," is because that is not the administration's goal.

[mburbank]

The adminsitration has a goal?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You make my argument for us leaving. They don't have a tiny stake, they have the ONLY legitimate stake. IF we could set up an actual international coalition with us doing some funding but no killing, the insurgents would loose the steady stream of recruits we provide them with.

The insurgents are going to keep getting recruits because there will always be a minority of people who want to fuck things up and push their extremist agenda.

Whether it's us there, the UN there, or a bunch of other nations there, there will be "insurgents." it isn't a give and take, IMO. They need to be defeated, regardless of who is there. So then the question is who is best able to get it done, us, or the UN? Us, or the untrained Iraqi army? We want full involvement from these bodies, but we can't assume that they could currently replace our presence there.

My point was this administration "does not care about polls" so liberals bitching should the last excuse they have for not getting something done.

So you then would support us if we were to tell the folks writing this constitution that it must exclude Islamic law from it?

The reason we haven't taken "a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc.," is because that is not the administration's goal.

Writing the constitution, getting an army trained, isn't the goal? Then what is?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

BTW, you can read an abstract text version of the constitution being proposed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Constitution-Text.html

[kellychaos]

Two big problems that I have always had with this war that probably would have lessened the problems that they have now:

1) If they had been clear on why they had originally occupied the country rather than muddy it with tales of WMD and being opportunistic in jumping in shortly after the 9/11 mania and trying to draw connections to Iraq, I might have been more supportive. Many people, to this day, think that 9/11 is the reason we invaded Iraq simply because it was easier for the administration to get everybody on the bandwagon by blurring the lines. Did the Bush administration believe that Iraq had WMD's? The previous administration certainly did, as is evident by their own Hillary Clinton signing off on the occupation as the majority of the Senate did. I don't think that it's a partisan thing so much as it is a weakness in intelligence organization. That was and still is the problem that needs to be addressed.

2) If they had made the troop commitment from the beginning, then the borders wouldn't have become the seive it ultimately became and perhaps we would have been able to not only secure the borders but also some of the in-country weapons stockpiles.

That's all spilled milk now, though, and what we are left with is a country whom we keep promising autonomy to yet extending the deadline ... unfair to them and our own soldiers. Are the demographics of those that oppose us going to change because we are there? Are the borders going to become any more secure even with the low commitment of troops which have not proven sufficiently capable? Not their fault, of course. They simply don't have adequate numbers of soldiers. Their police, or any position of authority for that matter, are going to remain targets after we leave no matter how long we stay. And just how much training do they need?

What kind of timetable are you guys talking about ... keeping in mind that we've been in South Korea for over 50 years and their northern border consists of a DMZ, guarded 24-7 with only a signed armistice.

[ziggytrix]

My point was this administration "does not care about polls" so liberals bitching should the last excuse they have for not getting something done.

So you then would support us if we were to tell the folks writing this constitution that it must exclude Islamic law from it?

Who the fuck gives a fuck what I think. I voted for Kerry.


The reason we haven't taken "a more strong-armed approach in writing the constitution, building the army, etc.," is because that is not the administration's goal.

Writing the constitution, getting an army trained, isn't the goal? Then what is?

1. Take out Saddam.
2. Make USA think we sure done good.
3. Oh shit oh shit oh shit, damage control, spin, spin, thank God *I'm* not actually over there in harm's way!
4. Check the polls. Announce that we "don't pay attention to polls".
5. Shell the fuck out of insurgent controlled areas.
6. Duck and cover.

something like that... only designed by committee.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My point was this administration "does not care about polls" so liberals bitching should the last excuse they have for not getting something done.

So you then would support us if we were to tell the folks writing this constitution that it must exclude Islamic law from it?

Who the fuck gives a fuck what I think. I voted for Kerry.

Um, you said that politics shouldn't prevent the administration from doing the right thing, so what would THAT be?


1. Take out Saddam.
2. Make USA think we sure done good.
3. Oh shit oh shit oh shit, damage control, spin, spin, thank God *I'm* not actually over there in harm's way!
4. Check the polls. Announce that we "don't pay attention to polls".
5. Shell the fuck out of insurgent controlled areas.
6. Duck and cover.

something like that... only designed by committee.

Nevermind. You're dismissed.

[ziggytrix]

You saying you don't think there's a disconnect between the think-tanks and the boots on the ground?

You're delusional.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm saying it's ridiculous to assume that the entire war plan is derived from the wishes of these ambiguous "think-tanks."

I think the "think-tanks" saw/see very good strategic reasons for democratizing iraq and establishing a friendly Arab regime in the middle east. As selfish as those desires may be, THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD GOAL!

I think this president would like to see a democratized and free Iraq. I think we certainly have selfish reasons for that, but again, it's still a worthy goal (considering we already went in and bombed the country, don't ya think?).

Saying the whole war was simply about toppling Saddam is in fact delusional, and it's almost a moot point. We went in there, we did this, and we need to clean it up. We owe it to these people.

Take back Congress in '06, and bring up impeachment charges on Bush and WMDs for all i care. That'd be fine with me. But we're in Iraq, and we need to help Iraq.

[ziggytrix]

I think the "think-tanks" saw/see very good strategic reasons for democratizing iraq and establishing a friendly Arab regime in the middle east. As selfish as those desires may be, THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD GOAL!

Sure, but we are not physically capable of "democratizing" a society - not using guys with assault weapons and artillery support. That's my opinion, anyway. I guess this whole ordeal has been an experiment to the effect of proving whether or not it can be done.

We didn't have a realistic goal going in if it was to "democratize Iraq and establish a friendly regime." Setting up our forces in Qatar was a realistic goal, and we did that (long before the Senate voted, I might add). Taking out Saddam's regime and imposing martial law was a realistic goal, and our troops did that. Handing a measure of control over to Iraqis was a realistic goal, and we've achieved that.

But you can't have democracy when there's an assault rifle pointed at you. At least, that's no kind of democracy I'd want any part of.

BTW, calling them "ambiguous think-tanks" makes me think that you think organizations like PNAC have no influence in Washington. Is that so? I think they have more influence than the DNC right now.

[ziggytrix]

Take back Congress in '06, and bring up impeachment charges on Bush and WMDs for all i care. That'd be fine with me. But we're in Iraq, and we need to help Iraq.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: I've never had Congress, so how can I take it back? You think because I voted for Kerry that I'm a party-line Democrat? Those fuckers are hardly better than party-line Republicans.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

But you can't have democracy when there's an assault rifle pointed at you. At least, that's no kind of democracy I'd want any part of.

I think tihs is an over-statement. I don't thin all Iraqis are being herded like cattle at gun point. I think we are pointing the barrels at a lot of people who deserve it, the very same people who would like to harm innocent iraqi people for the sake of their "insurgency."

BTW, calling them "ambiguous think-tanks" makes me think that you think organizations like PNAC have no influence in Washington. Is that so? I think they have more influence than the DNC right now.

I think they have influence, but the fact is overblown. Politicians fear money and voters. If a PAC/think tank can hurt them with money and attack ads, then they fear them. There are SO MANY think tanks in DC alone, and they all release studies and disertations on policy. Some have clout, i think, because they do good research. Others have clout because they are financed by the right people, and yes, are on the ears of certain politicians.

My point is that i think all of this fearmongering over Karl Rove, the "neo-cons," and "think tanks" can dilute the substance of the argument.

[ziggytrix]

I think tihs is an over-statement. I don't thin all Iraqis are being herded like cattle at gun point. I think we are pointing the barrels at a lot of people who deserve it, the very same people who would like to harm innocent iraqi people for the sake of their "insurgency."

Nah, we got em pointed at good guys and bad guys cause they all LOOK the same. Go to my "War On Drugs" thread, watch the video, and tell me you think the assault rifles were pointed at more drug dealers than innocent partygoers. Then tell me you think we use a lighter touch on foreign soil.

Give me a fucking break.

[ItalianStereotype]

And as thugish as sadaam was, his death toll is starting to look paltry compared to what they've got now.

I'm not being flip, I don't know. I would think the average Iraqi might well be developing a certain nostaligia for Sadaam.

I've tried to stay the hell away from this thread because this is all somewhat, well, completely retarded.

Max, I expect more of you than this. there's simply no comparison between the occupation body count and that of Saddam's thirty year dictatorship. the IBC, which I think is overestimating, is currently at a minimum of 23,000. in a single campaign, Saddam murdered 100,000. paltry my ass.

as much as we're hated by some Iraqis, I'm sure we'd be more warmly welcomed than Saddam any day of the week.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Go to my "War On Drugs" thread, watch the video, and tell me you think the assault rifles were pointed at more drug dealers than innocent partygoers. Then tell me you think we use a lighter touch on foreign soil.

Give me a fucking break.

You're ridiculous.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: I've never had Congress, so how can I take it back? You think because I voted for Kerry that I'm a party-line Democrat? Those fuckers are hardly better than party-line Republicans.

I don't care, that wasn't my point. I'm saying that if people want to get themselves into a position to call out Bush, then do it!, and that'll be ok!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Max, I expect more of you than this. there's simply no comparison between the occupation body count and that of Saddam's thirty year dictatorship. the IBC, which I think is overestimating, is currently at a minimum of 23,000. in a single campaign, Saddam murdered 100,000. paltry my ass.

as much as we're hated by some Iraqis, I'm sure we'd be more warmly welcomed than Saddam any day of the week.

I think his overall point could be compared to the way guys like Stalin often still poll well in the countries they terrorized, particularly during times of turmoil and economic instability. These people offered fear, murder, and terror, but they also offered a twisted form of stability and normalcy that people can perhaps get "nostalgic" over.

[mburbank]

Kev; I don't think we can "Democratize" anyone. I do not think Democracy, as worthy a goal as it is, can be imposed from the outside. I especially think a country that invaded another under false pretenses can them.

Eye Tai, I'm not calling Sadaam's evil paltry. I am saying that a prepetual state of civil war can eventually (key word) be even worse than brutal dictatorship. No one should take this as an endorsement of brutal dictatorship. I believe our presence is a garantour of a prepetual state of civil war.

Kev; On the broke vs. fixed front, again, what would fixed look like, and how much in terms of lives (ours and theirs) dollars and years are you willing to think it terms of as worth our laudabile goal of democratizing Iraq? Take into concideration that as long as we're there we are far less effective as a hedge against other countries (Iran, Korea, and whoever else may decide now is as good a time as they're going to get to pursue various objectives counter to our interests) and that eventually we'll cripple our economy.

Maybe I'm being overly pessemistic, but I think if we really intend to be there until Iraq is 'fixed' we are there from now on. I don't think Iraq will ever be fixed with us there.

"We can't set timetables" is a reasonable statement. but it begs the question how long are we willing to stay, and what's a ballpark estimate of how long we're talking about. It avoids the entire discussion. They govt. obviously won't engage the topic, but will any of you? Are you willing to stay in Iraq forever? And if that's too tall and order, you're already saying that at some point it woud be worth it to pull out, fixed or not.

There was a time when getting out of Vietnam was unthinkable, the ramifications were too huge, what kind of a message would it send? And as far as messages being sent goes, what kind of a message does it send that America is now the arbiter of wether a government is Democratic enough? What are the ramfications of a US policy of "Do as we say or well topple your government and occupy your country until it's fixed."

[ziggytrix]

Go to my "War On Drugs" thread, watch the video, and tell me you think the assault rifles were pointed at more drug dealers than innocent partygoers. Then tell me you think we use a lighter touch on foreign soil.

Give me a fucking break.

You're ridiculous.

WTF? You clearly either have no clue or are in denial of how the world really works outside of the political game. The first thing a soldier does when encountering someone he does not know is point his gun at them. Doesn't matter if they're a good guy or a bad guy.

Whatever, I'm done trying to talk to you. I don't know what you're doing in DC, but I'm guessing you are so embedded in the world of politics that you are already an expert on everything. Let me know if you ever decide to run for office so I can vote for the most brilliant cog in the system.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kev; I don't think we can "Democratize" anyone. I do not think Democracy, as worthy a goal as it is, can be imposed from the outside. I especially think a country that invaded another under false pretenses can them.

I think you're right, but we invaded. We went it, we bombed it, we toppled the regime, and now the country is in turmoil.

Also, if we were truly forcing these people to democratize, there wouldn't be this issie over constitution deadlines and agreements and stuff. There'd be a constitution. It'd be done.

We're not taking that route though, we're being deliberative, we're providing security services, and we're letting them sort out the kind of government that they want to build. I figure it's the least we owe them.

On the broke vs. fixed front, again, what would fixed look like, and how much in terms of lives (ours and theirs) dollars and years are you willing to think it terms of as worth our laudabile goal of democratizing Iraq? Take into concideration that as long as we're there we are far less effective as a hedge against other countries (Iran, Korea, and whoever else may decide now is as good a time as they're going to get to pursue various objectives counter to our interests) and that eventually we'll cripple our economy.

This is why and where I think the wrong man is in the White House (well, just one of several reasons). You're right, we can't carry this burden alone, and the longer we are there, the harder it'll be to focus on other things. This is why I think we need a president and a state department that creates a coalition of the realized rather than a coalition of the "willing." We need to impress on other thew nations the fact that this war is coming to all of them too, and that helping the Iraqis succeed isn't just in their interest, it's in the interest of the planet to have a democratized Arab republic of sorts in the middle east. It's in the world's interest to see these people succeed, rather than falling to radical Islam and oppression.

Maybe I'm being overly pessemistic, but I think if we really intend to be there until Iraq is 'fixed' we are there from now on. I don't think Iraq will ever be fixed with us there.

You keep saying this, but i don't really see you appropriately explaining it. How Iraq POSSIBLY be better when we leave, when the likely outcome could be complete collapse and civil war???

"We can't set timetables" is a reasonable statement. but it begs the question how long are we willing to stay, and what's a ballpark estimate of how long we're talking about. It avoids the entire discussion. They govt. obviously won't engage the topic, but will any of you? Are you willing to stay in Iraq forever? And if that's too tall and order, you're already saying that at some point it woud be worth it to pull out, fixed or not.

I again think that you show little regard or faith in the Iraqi people. This is a nation with a shit ton of oil, it's an ancient culture rich in heritage, art, and music. Baghdad is a swinging hot spot potentially. This is a country that already had one of the larger middle-classes in the middle east. This is a country that can succeed, and I think wants to succeed.

They do however have in their way the obstacle of terrorism and extremism. You seem to see us as the root of those things, I see us as the barrier against it. I guess we just differ there.

I'm personally willing to see it through in Iraq because it is our responsibility to see it through. Again, you see us as an impediment to that goal, whereas isee us as a necessary component and partner in achieving it. If we withdraw from iraq, it will most certainly fall to radicla fundamentalism. it will most certainly fall into internal conflict, and it will most certainly become another hotbed for terrorism.

The same criticism was brought against Bush for invading Afghanistan-- it was our mistake, we pulled out after the war with the Soviets, etc.

I don't think that we should make that mistake again.

There was a time when getting out of Vietnam was unthinkable, the ramifications were too huge, what kind of a message would it send?

I think we're talking about two different scenarios here. All "quagmire" parallels aside, Vietnam is a poor comparison.

The assumption was that if Vietnam fell, other countries would fall, and like dominos, the world would fall under Communism. This is different. Instead of communism, we're talking about extremism, specifically radical islamic extremism. We don't need to fear that nations will fall to this, because they already have. We're not this time scared of a growing ideolgy being exposed to a weak and vulnerable country.

We're instead the ones, this time around, exposing the new kind of ideology. We're the ones trying to bring something to the Arab world that makes them uneasy and shakes things up. The threat is very clear and very obvious, because they flood over the Iraqi border every day, targeting anybody who will help them push their agenda.

We're not fighting something political, or even necessarily rational and well-planned like global Communism. We're essentially fighting chaos and destruction. We're fighting people who absolutely hate us, and would be willing to kill themselves, along with innocent people, in order to succeed.

[mburbank]

You're still unwilling to even begin to get at years dollars and lives. I agree with you on a lot, but until we can at least look at the reality it's all platitudes.

If things aren't better a year from now can we talk about leaving?
Probably not.

How about two years? Seven? Seventeen? Thirty? One hundred and fifty? Why is this undiscussable?

I'll tell you what, if this constitution gets voted on and passed by the people of Iraq, I'd certainly do some rethinking and say maybe we're helping. And if the next administration is WAY different than this one. That's a lot of ifs and I'm willing to admit their possability. How do so many people get away with saying anything is is 'unthinkable' and leave it at that? That's how we got hip deep in this bullshit. "Defeat is not an option". Swell, that means there are a whole lot of scenarios we absolutely refuse to think about. We were a nation with it's fingers in it's ears when we went into Iraq and we still are.

Why is it a forgone conclusion that Iraq would collapse if we left? Is it in the interests of the region to let that happen? And what about the rest of the world? If we said "Listen, we screwed this up, and we are so tainted we can't do anything but make things worse. We aplogize, we'll give folks money and technical support, but our military is going home." that the rest of the world would just sit there? You all accuse me of being arrogant 'cause I think the Iraqis can't do democracy (which I haven't said and which is a republican talking point made available for self hypnosis), how arrogant are all of you to say "No one on earth can be in charge of helping the Iraqis but us." We are so used to playing God we think of it as jes' plain bein' Amurican.

Just so you know, I am not advocating alll american troops leave tomorrow. I'm advocating an immidiate, actual plan to get us out as soon as possible. I'm advocating new strategies that actually work toward getting us out because if we don't make those plans, constitution or no the real power in Iraq will be us and they'll be a protectorate.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Whatever, I'm done trying to talk to you.

YOU SAY THIS ALL OF THE TIME! KEEP YOUR PROMISES!!

Oh, and as for my "embedded DC life"....:lol

I dismissed your point because it was a ridiculous comparison. Do people who haven't done bad things get yelled at and have guns pointed at them and stuff sometimes? YES! You said yourself (slightly in jest) that it's hard to distinguish who are the bad guys and who are just civilians, particularly if it is this "urban guerilla" warfare everyone keeps saying.

Once again, this doesn't mean that we are specifically there to terrorize these people and rule over them like some evil hegemon.



You're still unwilling to even begin to get at years dollars and lives. I agree with you on a lot, but until we can at least look at the reality it's all platitudes.

Because I don't work at the fucking Pentagon Max, and i could throw numbers out there if you like, but neither one of us is on the ground there, neither one is involved in the war strategy, and neither one of us knows truly the actual nuts & bolts that are being arranged by the new government. Do you want me to say I'd commit bunches and bunches of soldiers and tons and tons of money? Ok, I would.

If things aren't better a year from now can we talk about leaving?
Probably not.

Right.

How about two years? Seven? Seventeen? Thirty? One hundred and fifty? Why is this undiscussable?

I don't think that it is, and I think Sen. Feingold (see his proposal) might be on the right track. As I told you, I'm a goals sort of guy. I like the idea of saying we want X to be done by this point, and Y amount at this point. I don't entirely agree with the prez on his strategy here, which is again one of many reasons I didn't vote for the man.

But, I am a believer that we need to be unequivocal and firm to a certain extent. If we allow these people to think that we'd buckle under at the slightest sign of pressure, then you will just see the terror more and more and more.


Why is it a forgone conclusion that Iraq would collapse if we left? Is it in the interests of the region to let that happen? And what about the rest of the world? If we said "Listen, we screwed this up, and we are so tainted we can't do anything but make things worse. We aplogize, we'll give folks money and technical support, but our military is going home." that the rest of the world would just sit there? You all accuse me of being arrogant 'cause I think the Iraqis can't do democracy (which I haven't said and which is a republican talking point made available for self hypnosis), how arrogant are all of you to say "No one on earth can be in charge of helping the Iraqis but us." We are so used to playing God we think of it as jes' plain bein' Amurican.

What proof do YOU have to indicate that the chaos would improve once we left? PLEASE don't say it would appease the so-called insurgents, because I think that's 1. the wrong goal to have in the first place and 2. not even necessarily the truth. I outlined what I think would happen if we left above.

Just so you know, I am not advocating alll american troops leave tomorrow. I'm advocating an immidiate, actual plan to get us out as soon as possible. I'm advocating new strategies that actually work toward getting us out because if we don't make those plans, constitution or no the real power in Iraq will be us and they'll be a protectorate.

And I don't think we're in total disagreement here. I think what you just said is a perfectly rational expectation, however i think both sides of the argument are far away from it. Bush just likes to talk in hyperbolic statements and use abstract language, which does leave us in a sort of limbo-like state there.

But I also think the Left on this debate isn't in the right place necessarily either. A lot of these anti-war groups and Dem. blogs are screaming "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!" I don't think they're talking about creating a feasible plan either, which leaves this serious discussion you'd like to have off the table completely, IMO.

[Ant10708]

Aren't people afaid that if we just up and left Iraq that it could easily become how Afghanstan was in the 90s? The Base's philsophy is pretty much an Arab/Islamic version of Hitler's. Isn't anyone afriad that if these people ever gained real military power that they would be more than willingly to inflict a Holocaust style killing on anyone they deem to be an infidel or apostate instead of blowing themselves up in a car on some street in Bagdhad. Our occupation is defiantly adding to recruitment and terrorism but I can only imagine how many more people would sign up if it looked like they drove us out of Iraq like they did to the Soviets in Afghanstan. Bin Laden has in the past commented that our biggest weakest is not being able to finish things through and put up with causualties of our own men. Leaving Iraq now would prove him right 100%. The extremists consider the fight in Iraq to be the equilvant to fighting the Soviets in Afghanstan. The foriegn fighters from all over the globe are coming to fight US in Iraq. Its terrible that the Iraqi civilians and Iraqi police/soldiers and our serivcemen and woman and other international soldiers are the ones being killed but I see fighting the flood of foriegn fighters coming into Iraq because of our occupation as better than them all chilling in their home countries planning ways to win matrydom.

Just sucks that our invasion of Iraq has created a new network of terrorists and taught a new era of people the techniques just like the Soviet war in Afghanstan did, but leaving now wouldn't stop that and I personally think Iraq's future would be much grimer if we left within the next year. I'm a conservative and the amount of money Bush has spent in his years as president is truly disgusting but leaving now before Iraq is somewhat stable I think would be costlier for us and the world in the long run.


Max you want years? I'd say we will have to still have some type of prescense in Iraq for another 5 years atleast and another 10 years at the most. But deciding when to end a conflict based on loss of life is never a good idea. I think if we did that we would never of even entered WW2, let alone ended it.

The invasion of Iraq was obviously not helpful to the world or our 'war on terrorism' but I don't think leaving prematurly will solve any of the problems we created and I think with the amount of extremists in Iraq now, there is more reason to stay than when we thought/lied about Saddam having WMDs.

[Ant10708]

Jonah Godlberg's take on Cindy:


Playing “Chickenhawk”
Left-wing platitudes.

"Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, an American soldier who was killed in Iraq . . . "

That's the sentence Cindy Sheehan and her increasingly lugubrious p.r. machine want every news story about her to begin with. Nobody likes the idea of criticizing a woman who's lost her son in such circumstances. The hope has been that the high wall of Mrs. Sheehan's "moral authority" will allow her to say whatever she pleases and that nobody will say boo about it for fear of seeming insensitive to what must be unimaginable anguish. Still, even some of her supporters must realize that her anguish has caused her to find meaning in a wildly partisan, orchestrated publicity stunt.

What's interesting, to me at least, is that Mrs. Sheehan represents simply the latest installment in a long, nasty, desperate ideological campaign — and one that demonstrates the logical limits of identity politics.

Anybody who's been on the receiving end of the "chickenhawk" epithet knows what I'm getting at. Various definitions of chickenhawk are out there, but the gist — as if you didn't know — is "coward" or "unpatriotic hypocrite." The accusation is less an argument than an insult.

It's also a form of bullying. The intent is to say, "You have no right to support the war since you haven't served or signed up." It's a way to get supporters of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the president simply to shut up.

But there's a benefit of a doubt to be given. There are many people — I know because I've argued with lots of them — who don't believe the "chickenhawk" thing is intellectually unserious.

Obsessed with "authenticity" and the evil of hypocrisy — as they see it — they think the message and the messenger are inextricably linked. Two plus two is four only if the right person says so. We hear this logic most often from adherents of identity politics, who give more weight to the statements of women, blacks, Jews, and others for the sole reason that they were uttered by people born female, black, Jewish or whatever. People who grew up poor are supposed to have a more "authentic" perspective on economic policy than people who didn't, and so on.

Don't get me wrong — experience is important and useful, including the experiences that come from being black or gay or otherwise a member of the Coalition of the Oppressed. But valuable experience confers knowledge; it doesn't beatify. And identity isn't an iron cage: It is not insurmountable. And, at the end of the day, arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them.

Indeed, the notion that there is a single, authentic black perspective strikes me as fundamentally racist in its essentialism. And the idea that women adhere to a female logic unique to them strikes me as by definition sexist. But the Left doesn't care, because this perspective is indispensable for attacking "inauthentic" blacks or other supposed traitors. What was it that Harry Belafonte said the other week? That blacks who work for the Bush administration are, in effect, "house slaves," akin to the high-ranking Jews in the Hitler regime (never mind that no such Jews existed).

The chickenhawk charge is the misapplication of the same faulty logic. There are war heroes who oppose the war, and there are war heroes who supported it. John Keegan is the greatest living military historian, and he never saw a day of battle. George McGovern flew 35 combat missions in World War II. I'll take Keegan's guidance on military matters over McGovern's any day.

Recently, desperate Democrats championed the campaign of Paul Hackett, an Iraq-war veteran running for Congress in Ohio, because he opposed the war and called the president an S.O.B. Just as others had done before with Wesley Clark and Max Cleland, Hackett's supporters suddenly declared that their hand-picked veteran had the indisputable, irrefutable moral authority to say what other anti-Bush liberals had been saying all along. But how does that make the content of those charges any more — or for that matter, less — accurate?

Maureen Dowd wrote of Sheehan in the New York Times this week that "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." This is either a sincere but meaningless platitude or it's a charge made in grotesquely bad faith. Surely Dowd recognizes that there are a great many mothers of fallen soldiers who believe the war was worthwhile. Is their moral authority absolute, too? If so, then moral authority can't really be very relevant to public debates. Or does Dowd claim that only those moms-of-the-fallen who say things critical of George Bush have absolute moral authority?

If that's the case, does Dowd truly believe — as Sheehan seems to — that this war was fought to line the pockets of Texas oilmen and to serve the interests of a treasonous Zionist cabal inside the United States? I think that's batty, and I'd need proof to believe it. Mrs. Sheehan's word isn't good enough for me on anything — save the fact that she loved her son.

[ziggytrix]

Whatever, I'm done trying to talk to you.

YOU SAY THIS ALL OF THE TIME! KEEP YOUR PROMISES!!

I meant about this particular issue. If you think it's no big deal that innocent people have their houses raided, family incarcerated, beaten, tear gassed, etc because our policy is to round up anyone suspicious, since it's better to imprison an innocent than leave a suicide bomber loose... if you can't see how we're generating as much ill will as any good we've done over there, well then we're just not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I think it's a lose-lose situation, you don't. I'm fine with that, but don't expect me to stay out of every thread you start or post in because I've disagreed with you in the past on this or other issues.

Perhaps I should have said "I'm sick of trying to talk to you" - since here I am still typing shit at you when I should know you don't give a fuck.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you think it's no big deal that innocent people have their houses raided, family incarcerated, beaten, tear gassed, etc because our policy is to round up anyone suspicious, since it's better to imprison an innocent than leave a suicide bomber loose... if you can't see how we're generating as much ill will as any good we've done over there, well then we're just not going to see eye to eye on this issue.

1. Do you think these innocent people are being targeted, or are they being targeted due to reasonable suspicion or cause?

2. Do you happen to have any numbers on the frequency of this behavior? How often exactly are we "raiding houses, beating innocent people, tear gassing, etc."??? Is this something you've seen heavily documented, or is it something you just assume is going on?


I think it's a lose-lose situation, you don't. I'm fine with that, but don't expect me to stay out of every thread you start or post in because I've disagreed with you in the past on this or other issues.

I think war sucks, and i didn't vote for the guy who started it. I protested the war in NYC during the largest public protests against this war around the world. I was sick when we invaded.

With that being said, I don't think this is a lose-lose situation. I think it's a difficult one, but one that could have outstanding strategic possibilities for us, as well as for the middle east. I've already talked about why I think Iraq can and will succeed if given the necessary support, so I'm not getting into that again.

[mburbank]

Kev; I think we can find common ground in the desperate hope that the next administration is nothing like this one. I think this one is tainted, stupid, egotistical and hamfisted, a very bad combo platter.

"1. Do you think these innocent people are being targeted, or are they being targeted due to reasonable suspicion or cause? "

Dude... (and I hate to say dude, but you made me) how about neither? Almost no one from soldier on the ground to policy maker ever thinks of themselves as a supervillian. Of course they are not being targeted. That in no way means that our causes and suspicions are reasonable. In our fairly recent history we trained, funded and in some cases fought alongside right wing death squads all over south and central America. We engineered a coup in Argenina and at very least turned a blind eye to the assasination of their president. Why in the world would you think we've gotten over that kind of behavior? We didn't do all the evil shit for the sake of being evil, we talked ourselves into thinking we had reasonable suspicions and causes. Any time we send soldiers to places where they don't get intense media scrutiny should send up red flags, not because we are evil, but because the nature of unfettered, unobserved power is abusive.

[kellychaos]

If this is a country with a rich heritage worthy of effort (I agree with that, btw), then why didn't we put forth the appropriate amount of commitment from the beginning when U.S. generals were begging and screaming for it? It kind of makes you question the present administration's motives in the whole affair, don't you think?

[Ant10708]

I think we all understand that Bush and his cronies don't have the best things motivating them. But that still doesn't mean we should leave immiediately.

[Ninjavenom]

NARM NARM NARM DERP DERP DERP

BIG PEOPLE TALK

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Dude... (and I hate to say dude, but you made me) how about neither? Almost no one from soldier on the ground to policy maker ever thinks of themselves as a supervillian. Of course they are not being targeted. That in no way means that our causes and suspicions are reasonable.

Again, while this isn't necessarily unwarranted, I'd have to see some actual PROOF that this is so clearly widespread.


In our fairly recent history we trained, funded and in some cases fought alongside right wing death squads all over south and central America. We engineered a coup in Argenina and at very least turned a blind eye to the assasination of their president. Why in the world would you think we've gotten over that kind of behavior? We didn't do all the evil shit for the sake of being evil, we talked ourselves into thinking we had reasonable suspicions and causes. Any time we send soldiers to places where they don't get intense media scrutiny should send up red flags, not because we are evil, but because the nature of unfettered, unobserved power is abusive.

I agree about the unchecked power, but I think you are comparing two very different situations. You're talking about a CIA that had a great deal of autonomy from a pretty aloof president. I suppose you could draw similar comparisons between the Contras and say the "private contractors" in Iraq, but i think it's a loose one.

[mburbank]

Substitute the word 'army' for CIA, and I think you'll get my message. Or didn't we hide prisoners from the Red Cross and reduce Fallujah to a big heap of rubble? Since there's virtually no reporting outside the greenzone, I'd say anything taking place out there is 'unfettered'.

This Bush adminsitration isn't as chummy with the CIA as the first one. That's why Donny has created paralell, creepy ass functions within the Pentagon, and it's why we use military advisors in Columbia.

The 'proof' you are looking for usually comes a lot of miles down the road. I'm a believer in transperancy and agressive watchdogs, because this shit almost always gets out of control. Couple that with the fact that this administration views secrecy as being next to Godliness and I hate to think of all the stuff that's going to under our national rock when it finally gets tuned over.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The 'proof' you are looking for usually comes a lot of miles down the road. I'm a believer in transperancy and agressive watchdogs, because this shit almost always gets out of control. Couple that with the fact that this administration views secrecy as being next to Godliness and I hate to think of all the stuff that's going to under our national rock when it finally gets tuned over.

I think you hold a slightly unrealistic expectation of war in general. In war, innocent people get harmed in the process, and there's often a lot of grey area between what's right, and what needs to be done.

I'm not condoning this behavior, but i am asking for an alternative. Should every soldier have their own mini-press corp. follow them around, take pictures, and record their frustrations? Should the Pentagon put out a PDF version of all their military plans for a given week? Does this sound like it would fly in a place where journalists have been the targets of kidnappings and beheadings...?

What level of transparency would make you happy, and would you care if it jeopardized winning the war?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

From the Weekly Standard:


The War Presidency

From the September 5 / September 12, 2005 issue: The success of the Bush presidency depends on his success as commander in chief.

by William Kristol
09/05/2005, Volume 010, Issue 47


"During the last few decades, the terrorists grew to believe that if they hit America hard, as in Lebanon and Somalia, America would retreat and back down. . . . So now they're trying to break our will with acts of violence. . . . Their goal is to force us to retreat. . . . We will stay on the offense. We'll complete our work in Afghanistan and Iraq. An immediate withdrawal . . . would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations. So long as I'm the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror."

--George W. Bush, speaking to National Guard soldiers and their families, Nampa, Idaho, August 24, 2005


THESE WORDS NEEDED TO BE SAID. In the face of mixed news from Iraq, and mixed signals from the administration, some of the president's supporters and subordinates have been going wobbly. They've been denying that the war on terror is a war, or that Iraq is central to that war. They've been defining down success in Iraq, and for that matter victory in the broader war on terror. Fortunately, the president made clear on Wednesday that he isn't buying the defeatism. He isn't heading for the exits.

Others want to. Republican strategist Grover Norquist, for example, recently told the New York Times: "If Iraq is in the rearview mirror in the '06 election, the Republicans will do fine. But if it's still in the windshield, there are problems." Norquist was reflecting real GOP congressional unease about the war and its implications for 2006.

But would it really be possible to put Iraq in the "rearview mirror" by the fall of 2006, even if we started leaving now? In any case, what Bush did in Idaho was to sever the link between war policy and the 2006 elections. He made clear that his time horizon is 2008. Congress can worry and complain, but Bush is not going to let his policy--U.S. foreign policy--be driven by such worries and complaints. So Republican senators and congressmen can stop the hand-wringing that the war isn't proceeding according to their electoral calendars. Instead, they can help the administration make the case for the necessity of victory, and could even follow the lead of John McCain in providing serious and constructive criticism of the war effort.

Meanwhile, the estimable George Will proclaimed last week that U.S. hopes for democracy in Iraq were "delusional," and that we had to be wary of further "overreaching." In particular, he took aim at a suggestion made in these pages some seven months ago that we consider bombing Syrian military facilities and/or occupying Syrian border towns in order to prevent terrorists from using Syria as a sanctuary from which to enter Iraq in order to kill Americans and Iraqis. No. Will said, "U.S. forces already have quite enough bombing and occupying chores."

Really? Occupying--maybe. But bombing? Is our Air Force overextended right now? Are we so weak that we can't deter or punish Syria? Some Bush supporters, especially those already inclined toward world-weary skepticism, have become convinced that we can't or won't fight the war so as to win it. That's a problem for the president. The solution is to explain that we have a strategy to win--not a strategy to withdraw--and to encourage the military to be aggressive and imaginative in carrying out that strategy, and to give it all the resources it needs to follow through.

Then, on Thursday, the day after the president's speech, the Financial Times ran a front-page story based on an interview with Major General Douglas Lute, director of operations at U.S. Central Command. Lute, still speaking off of old Rumsfeld talking points, and ignoring what the president had said a week before, said we were seeking to draw down troops over the next year in Iraq. Indeed, he seemed eager to proclaim this--and made the case for withdrawal based on Rumsfeldian dependency theory: "We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the . . . coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward."

This is war-fighting as welfare reform. Is the problem with our allies and potential allies in Iraq really that they are too convinced we're staying? Isn't it more likely that they're now too worried that we're going to leave, creating a dangerous dynamic in which Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds each feel they have to fend for themselves?

And more important, if Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, who cares about dependency theory? Don't we need to defeat Zarqawi? Don't we need to dishearten terrorists in Iraq and around the world who, as the president said, "want us to retreat"? We need to win in Iraq. We're not doing someone else a favor. And in fact, private conversations suggest that the operational U.S. generals in the field (if not the planners at CENTCOM) are confident we can win--if we don't draw down troops too soon, and if we build up Iraqi troops to fight side by side with ours instead of pretending they can immediately replace ours.

There have been real failures in the execution of the war in Iraq, and a poor job has been done in recent months of explaining the war at home. On the latter front, Wednesday's speech is a good start. Now the president needs to ensure his own administration is executing a policy consistent with his words, and also that these words are followed up with many more. Wartime presidents need to explain and re-explain what's at stake. They need to keep the country informed about the war. They need to keep morale high. And they need to take command so that the military and political strategy aims at victory. The success of the Bush presidency depends on his success as commander in chief. So does the success of American foreign policy.


-William Kristol



© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

[mburbank]

"we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror"
W

"THESE WORDS NEEDED TO BE SAID."
-Kristol


Okay, first off, I think Kristol must be deaf, as I've heard pretty much this speech at VERY least once a month for over a year now.

Second, and here lies my biggest problem, not just with W, but with this entire war...

What would winning the war on terror mean?

Me, I don't think you can win a war on a concept.

Far from thinking this is just bad grammar, I think it's deliberate. Crafting a ntional and foreigbn policy with a nebulous forever war at it's core is quite deliberate. We don't know really what the war on terror is. No one has bothered to say what winning it would mean, or how we would get there or even if it's possible. War time presidents are granted extraordinary powers. This administration intends for those powers to be held by the office of the presidency indefintely, and it's wider constituency believes their party can hoild on to that office from now on.

That doesn't mean terror isn't an issue. That doesn't mean there aren't terrorists. That doesn't mean the use of the military may not be legitimate. It DOES mean that we shouldn't be cowed into giving our government massive leeway for an undefined war. We have been in wars where we didn't know if we would win. We have been in wars we did not know the duration of. We have never been in a war where we had no idea what winning would be and no one would talk about it.

War on poverty? No one argued for war powers. War on drugs? No one argued for war powers. No one thought they were wars in anything but a rhetorical sense. There is an Iraq war. It could one day be 'won'. Does anyone think the war on terror is analagous?

[Ant10708]

Didn't we already give our government massive leeway during an undefeined war? The Cold War? Where we built up a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of destroying the entire world. And you're worried about Bush getting some extra war time powers?

I've yet to see Bush turn this country into the facist theocracy I keep hearing is coming.

He did ban federal government money on stem cell research thou and he was able to look at what books I took out of the library for most of his first term. :chatter

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror"
W

"THESE WORDS NEEDED TO BE SAID."
-Kristol


Okay, first off, I think Kristol must be deaf, as I've heard pretty much this speech at VERY least once a month for over a year now.

He said it that time on a military base. Sort of the choir, no? It seems like he says it a lot to you because you track him, Max. But Kristol's point is that Bush needs to talk about his plans, about winning, about logistics, and he needs to do it more. He doesn't do that, he talks in grand statements and hyperbole.

I think I heard Kristol support thisd point on TV by saying that Bush needs to essentially do fire-side chats, he needs to make his case to the people, and try to define the argument, rather than letting his silence do that. Unfortunately, his handlers might not have faith that he could be capable of that. I dunno.


Far from thinking this is just bad grammar, I think it's deliberate. Crafting a ntional and foreigbn policy with a nebulous forever war at it's core is quite deliberate. We don't know really what the war on terror is. No one has bothered to say what winning it would mean, or how we would get there or even if it's possible. War time presidents are granted extraordinary powers. This administration intends for those powers to be held by the office of the presidency indefintely, and it's wider constituency believes their party can hoild on to that office from now on.

Well, I disagree with this. I think the Bush team has certainly exploited the political benefits of being at war, but every president would do that.

I think Bush has in fact stated a plan to combat terrorism, which is what has made this iraq war so questionable. People bought it when he said we'd fight terror by stopping the states and institutions that supported it. He told the American people Saddam had weapons, that he was best buddies with Osama, and that he supported terrorism (which he did, btw, on the latter). Now, with no WMDs showing up, and no clear ties to the Islamo-fascists that threaten us, people are finally beginning to wonder why we went in there in the first place, and does it indeed relate to the war on terrorism.



War on poverty? No one argued for war powers. War on drugs? No one argued for war powers. No one thought they were wars in anything but a rhetorical sense. There is an Iraq war. It could one day be 'won'. Does anyone think the war on terror is analagous?

Nobody ever held the illusions that the war on terror would be quick and clear. I am one of those of the opinion that Iraq has now become a part of a broader war, thus making it crucial.

Winning in iraq however is a bit clearer than you assume-- that's why Kristol mentions bombing border villages in Syria. It may sound crazy to you (and probably is), but he is pointing out that a big part of this problem in iraq has nothing to do with actual IRAQIS.

[Preechr]

Yes. It's the oil.

It's all about the oil.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Who the heck even said that?

STAY TOPICAL!

[Preechr]

Seriously? Four pages and no oil?

This place sucks now. I blame you and max for being such sensible commies.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I've reverted to anarch-neo-communal-fascism.

[Pub Lover]

Kev isn't left wing anymore, the meat has made him crazy. :eek

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think i'm still pretty Lefty, I just love war now apparently.

[ItalianStereotype]

it's okay kev, I like the new you.

[mburbank]

I think winning the war in Iraq is theoretically possible.

I think winning the war on terror is not even an explicable concept, let alone possible. As long as there's no debate on that subject at the national political level, the whole idea that our objective is to 'win a war on terror' is carte blanche for a forever war.

And Kev, I never thought you ''loved the war". Just so you know.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think winning the war on terror is not even an explicable concept, let alone possible. As long as there's no debate on that subject at the national political level, the whole idea that our objective is to 'win a war on terror' is carte blanche for a forever war.

The problem with "the war on terror" is that P.R. prevents us from saying what this war is really about. It's a war that started before 9/11, and yes, it's going to continue for a while.

Of course a war against terrorism can't truly be won, because that's a tactic, not an enemy. The enemy that nobody feels comfortable saying is Islamic extremism. No, it's not Islam, and it's not your typical Muslim. But the problem is that the ACTUAL problem is woven into the other two, and we need to pick it apart, and get at the root.

So how do you win a war against an ideology? That's the question.

And Kev, I never thought you ''loved the war". Just so you know.
Oh, don't worry about it. I was mostly taking a jab at myself.