June 16, 2005

• “I have introduced a resolution that calls on President Bush to define the mission of our military in Iraq, set a plan to accomplish that mission and establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of US troops, so that we can provide some clarity with regard to our intentions and restore confidence at home and abroad.” I doubt any such resolution will garner much appreciation from folks who simply want us out NOW NOW NOW. Any defined mission (other than to exit Iraq) will be met with acrimony, any plan to accomplish said mission (again, other than to exit Iraq) will be decried, and any timetable set won't be fast enough. The problem is the military is being used now as an enforcement tool rather than a...military. That tends to be bad for infrastructure, since enforcement generally takes precedence over rebuilding (which is why many reports from Baghdad, Kabul, Mosul, etc mention the horrible living conditions that were present under Saddam, but which have been exacerbated by his overthrow and the subsequent vaccuum). However, to exit before Iraq has the national will to both run itself AND eliminate (or diminish) the threat from domestic terror (or insurgency, if you like) would be fatal to the entire purpose of the war effort and democratic reform process. So the question is (and always has been) when will we know when it is well and truly time to leave? Neither Bush, nor Rumsfeld, nor any politician or military personnel, nor even any Iraqi or Middle Eastern resident know the answer to that. It is a question, not of timetables and exit strategies, but of the collective abilities of all to discern the times and determine, when the time finally is right, how to go about leaving Iraq for good. I just don't think anyone can or is ready to answer that, and to do so prematurely through a specific timetable, is knocking on the door of disaster.
• The resolution calls for Bush to first *define* our mission in Iraq. The fact that you mention the 'purpose of the war effort and democratic reform process' suggests that our mission there has already been defined to your satisfaction. Your phrasing makes me wonder if you believe that a democratic reform process WAS the purpose of the war effort. I would say that the reasons that have been advanced by the administration for our presence there have so far all been lies- including not only the imaginary WMDs and imaginary connections to 9-11 but also Democracy In Iraq, which I would say is so far also imaginary. It may be as you say- that having stuck our national foot in it up to the shoulder, we will not find it easy to withdraw. But I would still like to hear some more public conversation about what the hell the point was and is supposed to be. >to do so prematurely through a specific timetable, is knocking on the door of disaster. Maybe so; I would expand on that by saying that we have already opened the door of disaster wide and walked directly in. But yeah, maybe we're gonna knock now.
• JESUS I am cranky about this. Not meant to be directed at you, F8x- I realize the war in Iraq is probably not your fault.
• The fact that you mention the 'purpose of the war effort and democratic reform process' suggests that our mission there has already been defined to your satisfaction. Your phrasing makes me wonder if you believe that a democratic reform process WAS the purpose of the war effort. I am sure that people who support the war (as I do) think as I do--that the mission and objectives have already been defined enough to be satisfactory. I am equally sure that people who oppose the war believe the objectives have been insufficiently defined. Is there a liberal media? Depends on your point of view. I was suggesting, however, that whatever you believe, our objective there has *at least* become (if it was not to begin with) the democratic reform of Iraq. As vague as that might sound, to me it is far and away the most important point in our current involvement there. As for your assertions as to the falsity of reasons given, I can only reply that I've made my points of contention known on other threads here. I will amiably disagree with you on the first points, but agree that more public discourse is needed. That being said, I'm not sure it will do a whole lot of good, as the nebulousness of the situation demands a similar attitude as to our exit date. F8x- I realize the war in Iraq is probably not your fault. I am pretty sure I didn't cause it. I did (and do) support it though.
• >our objective there has *at least* become (if it was not to begin with) the democratic reform of Iraq. It seems to me that the world view of a great many Americans requires that America be the leading man, the hero, of any story that is told about world events. That we were seeking to democratically reform Iraq is the only possible rationalization of our actions that allows America to remain in that role; so yes, that will become our objective. But say that really was our objective to begin with. In order to promote democracy, we launched an invasion of a foreign country which has resulted in the deaths of (depending who you believe) somewhere between twenty thousand and more than a hundred thousand civilians. It seems to me that if the war for liberation were going to be fought HERE, in America, around your house and mine, with you and me and our families living in the paths of bullets, THEN you and I would have the right to decide whether or not to fight that war. To support a war that's being fought over the smoking ruins of some other guy's country, and to justify it by saying to the bereaved, "Hey, it was all worth it for you guys- we liberated you!"- I just don't know what to say to that. If it worked, if the people there weren't living in a shooting gallery, if the whole country weren't trembling on the brink of chaos and civil war, if the sun rose tomorrow on Democracy In Iraq and all we had to do to make it happen it was kill pick-some-number-of-thousands of Iraqi civilians, *what in the hell could possibly make you imagine we had the right to do that*?
• Anybody have a paper bag I can breathe into...?
• To support a war that's being fought over the smoking ruins of some other guy's country, and to justify it by saying to the bereaved, "Hey, it was all worth it for you guys- we liberated you!"- I just don't know what to say to that. This is a pretty simplistic description of the situation, and I don't know of ANYONE, neocon or not, who is thinking along those lines. It's reductivist and inaccurate. Your representation of the purpose and means is skewed as to be unfair. Does my support of the war imply that I am cavalier about Iraqi civilian lives? No. But you make it seem as if that is so. But this is ranging from the topic, which is about exit strategies and timetables.
• >Does my support of the war imply that I am cavalier about Iraqi civilian lives? No. Your support of the war in the name of democratic reform implies, does it not, that to your way of thinking, the deaths of a certain number of Iraqis seems like a good trade for democracy in Iraq? What else does it mean to say you support the war? The topic is a resolution which calls on Bush to define our mission, to provide clarity with regard to our intentions.
• Whether it was a defendable decision to go to war or not (there is no such thing as a *good* war, just wars with better reasons than others), it's a moot point. It's done, you can't turn back time. The question is - what do the occupying powers do now to not screw up the peace? I wish Dreadnought were here, as he understands so much more of this than I do - he studies militaries and has been following what has been happening most closely. But apparently there have been serious problems with how the peace process of the war has been conducted - the U.S. forces did not end the active combat phase of operations when they should have, to start consolidating and trying to make peace. I think it's called moving from "phase 3" to "phase 4" - basically from active combat, shoot-anything-that-moves, to occupation and rebuilding, trying to get the civilians to trust you, being non-threatening in appearance to them (the British took their helmets off), trying to reestablish infrastructure and civilian order. Many of the recent problems in the American held areas have stemed from this serious command mistake. The British did not make the same mistake, and have at least experience with carrying out occupation among a hostile population - they have been having many fewer problems.
• The fact remains the US have interfered in another countries affairs and screwed up - AGAIN! The occupation is about installing a US friendly Administration in Baghdad so the oil companies that own George Bush get a plentiful supply of cheap Iraqi oil. Documents revealed by British journalists dated 6 months before the occupation began confirmed that the US government were going to occupy Iraq at all costs (no matter how many people had to die). They merely asked the British Government to fabricate grounds to justify the war - hence the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which never materialised. GB Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed this document was genuine when questioned by journalists. If the US are serious about democratic reform and ending Genocide why are they not intervening in Zimbabwe and Sudan and why did they ignore genocide in Serbia and Rwanda (hint - there's no oil there!)
• > it's a moot point. It's done, you can't turn back time. It's a MOOT POINT?! If I murder my next door neightbor, can I use that argument as my defense? When should people or nations be held accountable for what they do if not sometime after they do it?
• Stan, it's 1941. If I support the war, does that mean that I'm thinking in terms of "the deaths of certain numbers of British, French, and assorted other civilians is worth freeing Europe from Nazi rule" ? No, but it does mean that the deaths of a certain number of civilians is inevitable. Just because it's damned near tautology (civilians die in war) does not mean I measure my support in those terms.
• I doubt any such resolution will garner much appreciation from folks who simply want us out NOW NOW NOW. Any defined mission (other than to exit Iraq) will be met with acrimony, any plan to accomplish said mission (again, other than to exit Iraq) will be decried, and any timetable set won't be fast enough. I was against the war on Iraq since the day it was suggested by our dear leader, and so have been virtually all of my friends, family, and whatever I have that could be considered a "peer group." Yet I haven't actually met a single person who expressed the opinion that gettting "out NOW NOW NOW" would be a good idea in the long run. There may be folks who feel this way, but I suspect there aren't many of them. And I don't see much value in projecting how such a small group may or may not react. There will always be a displeased minority. So? There is, for example, a group of Americans who express the sentiment that we should "just turn the whole Middle East into a parking lot." Pretty much any serious plan vis-a-vis Iraq will disappoint this bunch, but no one seems too worried about their feelings.
• It means that you are trying to prevent the deaths of civilians at the hands of a foreign government. That, to me, is a traditionally acceptable reason to go to war. In Iraq, I am not aware of any civilians that were being killed by a foreign government.
• Whoops. Lagged2Death just messed me up. I was responding to f8xmulder.
• In Iraq, I am not aware of any civilians that were being killed by a foreign government. The Kurds will be pleased to hear this...
• Yet I haven't actually met a single person who expressed the opinion that gettting "out NOW NOW NOW" would be a good idea in the long run. You probably don't live in a university town then. I do, and it's not just students that talk like this. It's a rather common sentiment, I'm afraid.
• You probably don't live in a university town then. I do, and it's not just students that talk like this. It's a rather common sentiment, I'm afraid. Perhaps that's true. But you're basically saying that your personal experience trumps my personal experience, and therefore this is a common sentiment nationally. That's not very clear thinking. (How big is your "college town" anyway?)
• > It's a MOOT POINT?! If I murder my next door neightbor, can I use that argument as my defense? When should people or nations be held accountable for what they do if not sometime after they do it? You're right. It's not entirely a moot point. It's something that should be taken up with the American government (usually at elections). Just about 1/2 of your countrymen agreed with you. The other half didn't. Personally I was torn (and i don't even get a vote) - I don't like war, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but the international precedent is scary and a great many civilians died and everyone knows the WMD was a load of bullcrap, but things might actually improve in Iraq (provided they do not continue with the occupation as they had). It's not a blck or white issue. There were a lot of good people who believed the war would be a net benefit - they may be naive, because if you use violent means to bring peace, you may just undermine that peace. But in terms of deciding what to do now, sitting around debating the merits of the original decision is not a practical or productive option. This thread isn't about whether to go to war or not (we had a bunch of those), it's about what to do now. It may be already too late - the US military screwed up in its transition from active combat to peacekeeping months ago, and many have caused permanent damage to the relations between local civilians and the US military. There is no reason for them to trust the occupying force and many reasons to rebell against them. It is now a quagmire. What is to be done about it? I don't have many ideas, and I don't know the situation well. What I can think of many not be possible - soldiers actually trained in peace-keeping, rather than just combat, Arabic speakers to talk to people. real restrictions on the behaviour of the US military, a completely gutting of the system which allowed Abu Ghraib to happen - at least a very clearly transparent jail system, with all the rights you would see under common law - no holding without charges, no searches without warrents, prisoners treated with respect. How can any occupation bring democracy when these basic human rights aren't respected?
• F8x, it's not 1941. The Axis powers attacked the US in the course of a credible bid for world domination. To equate the US invasion of Iraq with the US entering the war against Hitler is frankly silly. The Bush administration decided that the achievement of their goals in Iraq- whatever you believe them to be- were worth the cost of an appalling number of lives. You apparently agree, and I never will; I don't believe that we had any moral right to make that determination. Bush certainly had no right to make it without first articulating his goals and his reasons. The power to declare war is supposed to rest with Congress precisely so that presidents can't make these kinds of unilateral decisions. Bush proceeded the way he did because he didn't want a national debate about any of this; he wanted to start shooting, because once that happens the 'don't switch horses' crowd comes out in force, and then you never really have to explain yourself. "It's a moot point", after all. Can you install democracy in other countries by circumventing the democratic process as it exists here? If our goal was really to bring democracy to Iraq- was this a smart or an abysmally stupid way to do it, do you think?
• Lagged, I'm not trying to say my experience trumps yours (my statement came off badly, I apologize). Rather, that we've had different experiences which lead us to believe different things. I live in a college town where there's about 35,000 students, give or take. But I would warrant that more than 95% of all university communities carry similar sentiments, so while they may be in the minority, I doubt there are as few as you might think.
• Different scenarios, and probably unequal threats, yes. But are you saying Saddam wasn't a credible threat? God, I don't know why I'm even debating this--I've DEFINITELY made my views known on other threads, you can just search under my username and find loads of support for the war. I really don't feel like reiterating it all again, especially since it is OT.
• The Kurds were attacked by the Iraqi government in 91 or so, correct? I will acknowledge your point, but it is worth noting that the only foreign government that I know of that attacked the Kurds was Iraq. Iraq is technically the government of the Kurds. But, that aside, after the US invasion in 91, Iraq was not able to fly a plane over 2/3 of their own country. If they would have tried, we would have shot it down. We controlled more of the air in Iraq than Iraq did -- by a long shot. In 2003 we did not go in to save the Kurds from anyone. Over the last fifteen years, who has killed more Iraqi civilians: the United States or the Iraq government? Pretty easy question to answer. Whose pre-2003 invasion statements concerning the state of the Iraqi weaponry were more accurate: the United States Government's or Saddam Hussein's? What was found in Iraq was more consistent with what he was telling us than what we claimed was there. Who exactly was Saddam Hussein a threat to? And how was he a threat? Hitler controlled arguably the strongest military in the world. He had rolled over several countries already. That is pretty credible as a threat. Making any comparison beteen Iraq and Germany would be preposterous. It is worth noting that Churchill has said that the problem with Germany in the post WWI time was that countries (namely the US, France, and England) failed to engage Germany and try to help them. Instead, those countries gave them high interest loans, helped drive them into poverty, and shut them off from the rest of the world. Churchill believed that led to the German people resenting the world. He believed that engagement and aid - and not isolation - would have prevented WWII. So what did we do after the Gulf War? We isolated. We drove them to poverty. We helped create condtions which would undoubtedly breed resentment for the US and the world. Then we waited. Then we announced that the resentment, hatred, and danger of Iraq had reached such a point that we had to go in and destroy it once and for all.
• >But are you saying Saddam wasn't a credible threat? Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyes? >especially since it is OT. “I have introduced a resolution that calls on President Bush to define the mission of our military in Iraq... ...so that we can provide some clarity with regard to our intentions" No it ain't.
• Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyes? Yet another thing we disagree on. And I see this, like countless other discussions, going nowhere.
• The most important thing the president can do is lead us into war. When a president cites reasons for going to war, those reasons must be true. The only reasons we were given before we invaded Iraq were that we knew that they had weapons and that they had ties to al Qaeda. (By the way, those were the only legal criteria for use of force against Iraq.) Iraq had no weapons and no ties to al Qaeda, and was in no way a threat to the United States (sponsoring suicide bombers in Israel, while reprehensible, is not a threat to the United States). Please cite how Saddam was a threat to the United States; maybe the plywood gliders that could cross the Atlantic with tons of anthrax?
• Apologies for my flip response. You repeated that the discussion was off-topic; material from the original post suggests to me that it's not. Is this a good way to bring democracy to the world? Can you really champion democracy while circumventing the democratic process here in the US? Those are a couple of my big questions, and if you've already talked about this stuff elsewhere 'til you're blue in the face, that's okay, 'cause I don't really want to hear you answer them anyway; I want to hear Bush answer them. A big part of the reason I have difficulty not getting all catty and sarcastic in a conversation like this is that it's incredibly frustrating to know that Bush will probably never be asked these questions, except in the most fawning, deferential way, and will certainly never answer them but with stuff like 'because they hate our freedom'. But my catty sarcastic tendencies and other personality defects probably ARE off-topic...