Now That the Campaign is Underway
Dr. X posts this from the Chartreuse Zone:
"The following was originally posted on another site, November 13, 2004. I believe the questions posed at the end of the post should be asked of all candidates in the coming election, and waffling, dissembling, casuistry &c. should be dealt with harshly:
-------------------
"For those of you who view the U.S. presence in Iraq as an indefensible Republican adventure, I suggest to you that Bill Clinton would also have pursued this war, and has, in fact, defended Bush's decision to undertake it:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/
"Moreover, Clinton's former CIA director James Woolsey has argued that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the first World Trade Center bombing, and in 2002 said "Iraq can only be dealt with effectively by military action... Iraq is like Hitler's Germany in the mid-1930s. There's no sense waiting, as the situation will only get worse." That's not Dick Cheney, people, that's a Democratic appointee.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/7/24/230153.shtml
"Note also that Kerry did not run against the war, he ran against Bush's handling of it. One of the keys to his platform was getting Europe and the rest of the world more involved.
"The involvement of Britain is also a bit of a tipoff - Tony Blair is not a member of the Republican party.
"So, my question is this. Which of the following options do you think the U.S. should now adopt?:
1) Pull out of Iraq and leave it to its fate
2) Energetically fight the insurgents and try to stabilize the country
3) Retreat to our bases and let the Iraqi government try to handle things
4) ???
"And please don't suggest we turn this over to the UN. The UN has a horrific track record, as the survivors of this situation can attest:
"And their current performance in Darfur is not inspiring.
"It's easy enough to vilify this administration, and God knows they have earned the disrespect of millions, but seriously, what do you think America should do?"
posted by Latouche at Large at 11:39 PM
4 Comments:
I say let's keep doing what we're doing now, wait, and see if it starts working any better. (Oh, I guess I agree with you, then.)
Dr. X posts this from the Maroon Zone:
"My point is, Hillary is not selling peace, she's selling a better-run version of the same war.
"According to this New York Times article:
"- Edwards would leave troops in Iraq in case violence spilled into 'other countries'.
"- Hillary would leave forces to 'stabilize' Kurdistan (deter Turkey?).
"- Obama would leave forces there to 'provide security...fight terrorism, and train Iraqis.
"- Joe Biden is where I was a year ago, wants to wait for the Iraq government to be set up first. I no longer have any faith that this will happen.
"Now my guy, Bill Richardson, says 'I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get Out! Get Out!'
"But most of the Democratic candidates are up for continued significant military involvement in Iraq."
There simply aren't good options.
(I note that the U.N. and Nato have finally stabilized Yugoslavia, and deserve real credit for it, after their moral failure to act in the 90s, which Bill Clinton to an extent shares. )
The latest White-House driven spin on the war, that the surge has been quietly making progress, is next to nonsense. The GAO flatly contradicts it - Bush has been quoted as saying he wants to try to keep it going long enough so a Republican president can turn it into a victory, presumably by dropping our division of paratrooping magical elves.
Hillary's position is as you describe it. And I honestly believe that it is theoretically possible that a Democrat, taking over right now rather than 2009, would have a slight chance of improving the situation, mostly by providing clear thinking and credibility. You want to have a chance to win this war? This would require impeachment, not tomorrow, but today.
Say hello to President Pelosi. (I'm all for it. )
But what I think it would take to manage the conflict into stabilization simply will not occur with Bush as president:
1) Restoration of Iraqi socialism (jobs, jobs now, paying jobs - I saw a breakdown that suggested that around 80 percent of Iraqi prisoners were not ideologues but mercenaries). Will not happen.
2) Partition of Kurdistan. They want a state more than they want oil. Bribe turkey with entry into Europe. Will not happen.
3) Call Iran's bluff. Begin serious talks. Build them a nuclear power plant they say they want in exchange for laying off Iraq. Will not happen.
4. Supersurge - Institute a draft and double the U.S. presence for two years, with a hard deadline withdrawal for 2010, incl surrender of our bases, with a post-stabilization, UN based (sorry , no options) administrative transition government. (Non-democratic - elections for 2014 or so. Will not happen. In many ways, should not.
Something close to these steps are absolutely necessary if we have any hope of stabilizing Iraq. Lacking that, I'm with Obama. A smaller force might yet have some deterrent effect, might provide some safe bases for people who worked with us who are surely targets; and an orderly withdrawal is a military necessity.
6. But there is no option that can remove our moral stain here. It is Vietnam wrapped up in Chile and we've farmed a lot of dead people for the personal egos of our leadership. Worse, it fatally taints all U.S. military action that might be taken to stop genocides in the near future. Even worse, this war and the related endless war on the Boogie Man, I mean terrorism, has set America on a fascistic course that is now faltering but is going to have to be broken down hard.
Dr. X posts this from Kurdistan:
"You're absolutely right, there are no good options. We've failed the Sun Tzu test twice - first by getting into a position where we had to commit troops, then by fighting on their terms and not ours.
"As if on cue, a study by retired officers makes some concrete recommendations. From the looks of it, they're a bunch of disloyal Democrats."
Post a Comment
<< Home