Monday, 06.16.08
What Obama Can Learn from Gates
MARK WILSON/AFP/Getty Images
Looking on the bright side
April 2008
James Fallows commends Robert Gates for his leadership style.
Was the Iraq Study Group Report Really a Flop?
January 2007
Like Sen. Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates strongly doubted the wisdom of invading Iraq. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group, which, except for a throw-away sentence about a temporary surge of forces in Baghdad, was inclined to withdraw our forces from combat operations back in 2006. Therefore, when Gates became defense secretary, many assumed he would push for a retreat from our commitment to the Baghdad government. But he did the opposite. He aggressively prosecuted the war, fired his combatant commander for Central Command (who was less enthusiastic than Gates about winning in Iraq) and Air Force chief (who wasn't getting UAVs to the battlefield fast enough). Gates, who initially opposed the war, is fighting it with more gusto than his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who supported the invasion.
This is not uncommon. Army Gen. David Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker were likely not avid supporters of the invasion either, but both are now working not just to get America out of Iraq with our honor intact, but to win there. Sen. John McCain, who was cool to both the insertion of forces in Bosnia and the war in Kosovo in the 1990s, was vigorously in favor of winning those conflicts once troops were committed on the ground.
There is a lesson here for Barack Obama.
Obama was against the Iraq War and can forever claim credit for foreseeing its difficulties. Still, he may soon be in the same position as Gates, Petraeus, and Crocker -- that is, with bureaucratic responsibility for getting the best possible result out of our 2003 invasion. And Obama will not be alone: Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski have been saying repeatedly how disastrous the war has turned out to be. Obama, Albright, and Brzezinski are still acting as if the war was lost long ago, even as Gates, Petraeus, and Crocker have gradually, painstakingly turned it into a war that will be the Democrats' to lose.
The Democrats may well be right that the invasion was a strategic mistake that cost us greatly both in the Middle East and in the rest of the world. But their dire predictions from two years ago don't look very good in hindsight. And so they need to start thinking constructively about Iraq, not destructively. To wit, as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage -- another opponent of the war -- has said, the United States will be known and remembered as much by how it got out of Iraq as by how it got in. Armitage is thinking constructively in a way that Obama and company need to.
Obama can and should keep reminding voters about how he opposed the war from the beginning. But the less inclined he is to close the distance between what he will do next in Iraq and what Sen. John McCain will do next, the greater is the possibility that Iran will take advantage of the policy gap between the two candidates. McCain is publicly committed to staying the course that Gates and Petraeus have set the United States military on in Iraq. Obama is committed to getting all the troops out by 2010 no matter what. A precipitous withdrawal may be the last chance the Iranians will have to dominate Iraq to the degree that they had thought possible in 2006. If Obama heads into the fall campaign without visiting Iraq, without acknowledging progress there, and without altering his time-table for withdrawal, the Iranians may decide to help his electoral chances by initiating a new spate of bombings.
In other words, the closer we get to the election, the more consequences Obama's public position may have for events on the ground in Iraq. And Obama's position can surely evolve in a direction that acknowledges the need to stay tough there, even as he continues to claim credit for having been against the project from the beginning. Rather than blur the distinction between him and McCain, he can subtly shift on Iraq in a way that demonstrates just how serious a thinker he is on foreign policy.
Every email I get from troops deployed in Iraq talks about the improved situation on the ground. Obama should be aware that they think it is far from a lost cause.
He's no RumsfeldDavid Corn celebrates Robert Gates's nomination and praises the new Secretary of Defense for injecting a dose of realism in Bush's foreign policy. |
Getting to know the new SoDNPR conducts a Q & A with Mary Louise Kelly about Gates's early days and his lack of partisanship. |
Paradigm shiftSpencer Ackerman argues that Obama's vision for a more liberal foreign-policy could change the way we think about America's leadership. |
The CabinetThe Washingtonian reviews possible members of President Obama's Cabinet and mentions advisers like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samantha Power. |
Exiting IraqZbigniew Brzezinski argues in favor of a prompt withdrawal from Iraq. |
(97)
As Americans, what we don't do very well is evaluate the "Other" point of view. We think in terms of superior firepower and a bunch of nonsense we bring to the table without considering what the "Other" might do in response.
As it stands, America, the superpower, is at the mercy of the Iraqis. Why, we are so desperate to save face that we are determined to do whatever the Iraqis want in order to look like we have achieved "Victory." Trouble is, we don't even know how to determine what victory is.
The real question is, What in the hell is the goal? Does anybody know? Please don't say victory unless you can define what that is.
John McCain doesn't seem to get it. What are we going to win. What do the American people get out of this. Why should we have to foot the bill and the oil companies get rich. With over 4000 soldiers dead, and a few trillion dollars in the hole, this war can never be won. We are not going to destroy our country so your pals can get rich from Iraqi oil. If we stay in that country, American soldiers will continue die for nothing. I have an Idea for McShame. Why don't the oil companies pay the Blackwater Mercs to stay there for the next 100 years and send our soldiers home. Then you can steal all the oil you want.
President Obama could do a lot worse than ask Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense.
I'm a Republican supporter of Obama. I've been against the war, and like Mr. Kaplan, I appreciate the fact that Obama was against it from the start.
Kaplan is right in pointing out that the situation in Iraq has changed and for the better, although there is still a long way to go. This change, which seems miraculous, is due to the blood and sweat of our troops as well as the leadership shown by Gates, Petraeus, and Crocker.
Obama should at least acknowledge this, and there are a few ways he could do that without backing off from his overall position. The most obvious is to hold consultations with Gates, Petraeus, and Crocker. Another would be to tip his hand regarding cabinet positions, even if this is preliminary. I'm interested not just in who he is getting advice from, but who has the most influence with him. (And FWIW, I think Bill Richardson would make an excellent Secretary of State, if not VP. I would also like to see Gates remain as Secretary of Defense, although that seems very unlikely. Sam Nunn would be my second choice.)
I think Obama can still talk about setting timetables for withdrawal if he links these to results in the field. Whatever he does, he needs to acknowledge that the situation is different, even if it alienates the far left.
@Tunde:
I think we're beyond talking about "Victory". The best that can be hoped for is an Iraq that will not plunge into civil war two weeks after we leave, setting of a larger regional conflict in the Middle East. If these means delaying our withdrawal for another year to 2011, then so be it. I'm not against a time table, I just think Obama needs to be flexible.
As I said, it's not about "Victory". It's about finding the least bad option.
Kaplan,
Can you explain what victory in Iraq would look like? Does an endless labyrinth of blast walls separating Baghdad's neighborhoods of American "financed" (read bribed) Sunni militias and Iranian sponsored militias the victory we were sold in 2003?
In any event, the Iraqi people have already tired of the American presence and we will be shown the door, one way or the other. That's democracy for you, Bob. Shall we say no? Do we have to define victory the same way? These are questions nobody seems to answer. Perhaps you could help shape the minds of the naives and doves and cynics who want to see us defeated in Iraq. Please, you’ve been right so often, school us up again.
Well I didn't anybody could teach Obama anything!
I though that all his defense and and international diplomacy credentials were already made.... by spending a couple of years as kid in Indonesia and of course there was that trip to Pakistan while in college.
Lets me sleep at night, how about you?
we all thought that afghanistan was a victory look what is hapenning there now The big difference between Hitler and this evil terorism is that Hitler had a conventionnal army The talibans do not care about what is conventionnal ;when it becomes bad ;they shout their arms waiting so you can really succeed as in ww2 So winning is not the word to use !!!!
What is Victory?
Victory is being able to leave Iraq with a stable, democratically elected government and a population that is relatively secure from immediate threats of ethnic cleansing. Day-by-day, this type of victory is becoming more and more possible.
Victory is being able to leave with relative assurance that the country will not descend into mass violence and reprisal killings, which would be of our fault, because we stirred the pot.
If you think that we have done great harm to the Iraqi people with this war, then our moral responsibility to leave the country on strong footing is all the greater. It is not about what we can get out of it - it is about doing the honorable, responsible thing.
If you think it was wrong for us to be there in the first place, it is all the more wrong for us to leave without paying the price to put the country back together as much as possible.
The Iraqi people, by-and-large, are NOT asking us to go. They want us to stay. That's why they want us to sign a Status of Forces agreement - to ensure that we'll be around to help out as they continue to get back on their feet.
Marvin got it right. Their killing each other over the land that has the oil, and how much money each group will get when it's sold. This has been going on for years. I can understand wanting to make sure everything settles down before we leave, but Bush is trying to keep us there indefinitely. Our country can not afford to keep this war going for all these years. If McCain wins he will ruin us. With his tax cuts for the rich and the cost to keep us in Iraq the dollar would be worthless. Our country is 11 trillion dollars in the hole. There has to be an end, no matter what Iraq looks like.
WE WON IN 2003 - NOW GET OUT !
What was the initial objective in Iraq? To remove Saddam Hussein from power and to castrate his nukes if any. They were achieved long ago. What is America doing there? Why did we redefine victory? How many people (of all nationalities) must die for the sake of Iraqi oil? What good are Iraq's oil reserves if they can't produce much oil? Who gives a duck about oil anyway??!!!
DUMP THE OILMEN AND BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
Jen K - who authorized you to arbitrarily reinvent victory? We did NOT go into Iraq to impose democracy at gunpoint. That's impossible anyway. Our objective was achieved. Let's turn the place over to a UN peacekeeping force staffed by troops from Muslim democracies (Turkey, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, etc.) Get the scared, arrogant, imperious Americans out!
Michael M. No one advocates staying in Iraq with indefinite hostilities and you cannot find a quote from McCain or Bush that suggests either of them wishes to do so. The only quotes you will find hinting at that possibility are from those trying to twist the stated position of either into somthing other than what was really said.
McCain's point that we may have to stay for years is based on the successful models of post war Europe, Japan, and Korea. In those cases the presence of American forces helped stabalize the region and allowed the growth of strong democracies with vibrant economies.
Sorry Jen K, but the Iraqi people do not want us to stay. The only Iraqis that want us to stay are the ones that want to hoard the oil money. McCain, like Bush wants to keep us there indefinitely to keep the oil flowing. Do you understand that we take on the debt, you and me, and the oil companies make all the profits. They don't even want to pay taxes. Bush has been giving them a free ride for years. I'm sorrry but we have our own country to run. How are all those people in Ohio going to fix their homes after this weeks flood. What about the people of New Orleans that are still scattered around the U.S. without a home. I have had it with the wallstreet scams and our corrupt government that use this country to fill their pockets. How many millions did Bush say vanished into thin air in Iraq. Truckloads of arms just disappeared. Their going to tell me that Social Security is going to run out after I have been paying into it my whole life. They spent it to get oil. We need to win in Iraq like I need a hole in my head.
Phy, they will never let us stay in that country with the oil flowing. Your talking about a whole different part of the world. Your talking about people that are willing to blow themselves up, and kill as manny as they can to get rid of us. We do not have the right to force our way of life on anyone. We are killing children for oil. What don't you understand. Our country is falling apart. We are 11 trillion in debt. Canada gives us oil, Bush gives them our jobs. Mexico gives us oil, Bush leaves the border open so they can take our jobs. China loans us money so we can fight a war for oil, and Bush gives the Chinese our jobs. We have to pay back all the money that was borrowed, and the oil companies get rich from Iraqi oil. Do I have a moron sign on my head. Go McCain.
Jen K, Actually, a status of forces agreement was rejected by the Iraqi government just last week.
What is victory? I am sorry, but maybe we should use a bit of historical relavence:
History is Germany: Now. History is Japan: Now. History is France: Now. History is S. Korea: Now. History is Kuwait: Now. History is Bosnia: Soon.
It took 7 years before we gave control of Japan back to them, to even have their own government. Iraq already has theirs, even if flawed. We "Occupied" Japan for 7 years. No, it wasn't perfect, but look at all of those nations now. All are far better then before.
As for those advocating "Pull-out" look at what has happened in the cases that we have. N. Korea? Vietnam? Somalia? WW I Germany?
When we "Pull out" or choose to lose a war, that nation ends up a mess. When we stay in, and help rebuild a nation, it becomes a stable, successful nation.
I really can't understand why the American people don't realize that if we decide to go to war that it will be long and messy, and include long rebuild periods.
Or that if we decide to leave that we are dooming the populous to a horrid existance.
A question: Does anybody here supporting the "pull-out" think that Iraq will become a stable, prosperous nation on it's own, with out our support, even though history shows us that every time we do the nation fails?
And if not, are you willing to condemn the 27 million people in Iraq to another killing field?
Does anybody think that we can continue to have a presence in Iraq with billion of dollars spend every month and still maintain prosperity at home? Does anyone see a causation between the state of the U.S. economy and the billion spend to stimulate the Iraqi economy.
I just don't think we can do both. It looks more and more like a zero sum game. There is no multiplier effect in the U.S. when billions are spent in the iraqi economy. Those who get rich from that spending are the guys behind the green zone, namely the iraqi government officials and the like of Blackwaters, Halliburton and so forth, Bush's buddies.
I'm sorry, what is the goal again? Is it achievable? How many years before it's achieved? Who wants to volunteer for that mission? We've decided to sacrifice the young for the stupidity and greed of the old. Is that it?
Hey John we've won. We bombed our way to domocracy. With the flag in one hand, and a gun in the other. We America. Goooo McCain.
There is a strong isolationist streak in many of the comments above. The assumption embedded in this is that there are no threats to the security of the United States which require us to project force anywhere else in the world.This hasn't been the case since at the minimum, Pearl Harbor, and perhaps the attack on the Maine. Not forgetting however where "...to the shores of Tripoli" comes from. President Jefferson, (Thomas, not Wm. Blythe Jefferson) sent one Presley O'Banion and several of his friends (Heh), to put and end to that threat from radical Islam to our merchant shipping. But I wander. Like it or not, the United States is the world power, and there has never been such a benign superpower. Were we as machinistic and scheming as I read above in the comments, the closest oil would be Mexico. Who's would have stopped us, Fidel? I know the "It was all about oil!" is a popular article of faith, but really...grow up. (Try believing in the Divinity of Christ, it is less preposterous.) The carriers sent to help following the huge tsunami was a projection of American power. Good, because, no shooting? May I strongly recommend Mr. Kaplan's book Imperial Grunts? You will come away with a very different understanding of what soldiering can be about.
I strongly agree that Obama needs to acknowledge that his Iraq strategy in January 2009 should be based on the situation as it exists in January 2009--and not as it existed in January 2007. There has been measurable progress in Iraq, even though the goals of the surge that President Bush outlined on January 10, 2007 were not met on time, if at all. Whether it will have been worth the additional $300-500 billion we will have spent on the surge strategy is a moot point. President Bush's actions cannot be undone--and won't be until January 2009 at the earliest.
Barack Obama should begin talking with Gates, Crocker and Petraeus and his own advisors about what is and is not being achieved in Iraq. His team should begin making plans for January 2009 based on current information. I hope that there is significant additional progress between now and January 2009. Obama's timetable could turn out to be perfectly reasonable given the facts on the ground. All Americans should hope and pray for this result.A couple of other random thoughts: -I agree that Obama could do a lot worse than offering Gates Secretary of Defense.
-I agree with the posters who question the definition of America winning in Iraq. I think that the goals need to be stated in terms of a stable Iraq, a successful Iraq. Speaking of American victory or America winning is the surest way of uniting the Sunni and Shia insurgents against us and putting out troops in danger.
This is just more of the ridiculouse imperialst cant that Kaplan has been peddleing for years. It is exactly the kind of thing that turned me from a lifelong Republican into a fervant Democrat and I am betting Obama's not buying it either.
History is Germany: Now. History is Japan: Now. History is France: Now. History is S. Korea: Now. History is Kuwait: Now. History is Bosnia: Soon.
Was to be:
Victory is Germany: Now. Victory is Japan: Now. Victory is France: Now. Victory is S. Korea: Now. Victory is Kuwait: Now. Victory is Bosnia: Soon.
Fixed it!
Josh
Please forgive my spelling, passion got ahead of editing.
Personally, I think that the Iraqis FEAR of being abandoned by the USA is what is ACTUALLY driving the improvements in Iraq.
While Bush & McCain were saying we'd be there forever, the Iraqis could just concentrate on getting the upper hand, while the US played referee.
Now that the referee will be leaving, the Iraqis have realized it is up to them to straighten out their mess.
Obama is ALREADY WINNING IN IRAQ.
"imperialst"
- The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
Or look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Quick, could somebody here name a single nation the US has Imperialised in the last 60 years? You know, GWB's lifetime?
That word is rather ignorantly thrown around when refering to the United States. Russia and Britian in the past, yes.
Us of today? No. Unless you feel like changing the definition of the word to match your view.
:P
(as for being there forever, I think you need to re-read the full quote there WD:
"Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."
Question for you: How is that any different the Germany, Japan, or S. Korea? And is it a bad thing we are there?)
God forbid that we might actually have a stable democratic nation in the mideast besides Israel. God forbid that we may have created a mideast country that turns to elections rather then war. Gawd forbid if we have created a buffer against the mullahs in Iran.
My goodness what will the Demos do if they do not have the helicopters fleeing from the green zone ala vietnam 1975.
Victory -impossible. We all know we cannot win any war on terrorism. Besides we need a federal judge to rule if the outcome of the Iraq war is fair or not.
What will the empty suit Obama do now? Argue why high gas prices are good for us?
To all the "usual suspects" above:
Thanks for once again sharing your delightful brand of moonbattery with me...it's truly breathtaking.
The problem for The Obamessiah is that he's now in a quagmire of his own:
If he goes to Iraq (as he has apparently just pledged to do) and--ooops!--discovers that the situation there is actually much better than he thought, Prince Charming will...
a) screw the pooch with his loony base who cannot, and will not, accept anything less than total defeat.
b) effectively, and publicly, admit that he's been wrong, which won't exactly reflect well on his judgment and perception of reality.
Conversely, if Obama goes to Iraq and then continues to bad-mouth our effort there, despite lots of verifiable evidence to the contrary...
a) McCain will mercilessly hammer him for being a reality-denying idiot.
b) He'll satisfy his KosKidz base, but will run the risk of losing just about everybody else.
Think I'm wrong? You might want to reconsider especially now that His Obamajesty has just given Hillary loyalists a giant middle finger with that Doyle appointment. Their revenge will be to jump ship to McCain...or just sit on the couch and watch "Oprah" on election day.
I think this war should be measure by its relationship to the gas prises at the pump - I guess that was the reason we went in there at first place. If it is more American death with higher prices, we shouldabsolutely get out of there.
All indications point to a flexibility on Obama's part, depending on what is happening on the ground once he's sworn in, as well as a desire to consult with people like Gates, Petraeus and Crocker.
Obama's current plan for withdrawal is based on what is happening now. Sure, some security improvements have been made over the last year, but is there any clear sign that political reconciliation in Iraq (the goal of the surge) is on the way? I haven't seen any. We can't keep this going indefinitely; it is costing too many lives and too much money.
Josh, how can you compare Germany, France, Japan to what is going on in Iraq. We were defending ourselves and the rest of the world. We did not start those wars. We won and stayed there to make sure that they didn't start any crap. Iraq didn't attack us. This was Bushes little war for oil. What makes you think we have the right to force our way of life on someone else. We don't have the right to tell Iran that they cant have nuclear technology. We have the right to be concerned about them making nuclear bombs but Bush GOES OVERBOARD. When you have nuts like Bush & McCain that are willing to bomb a country for oil, would you stop making nuclear bombs to protect yourself. Bush & McCain dont even want to talk to Iran, they just keep making threats through the media. We got a bunch of money grabbing psycho's running our country. You cant go around killing everyone just to get what you want. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons they couldn't use them. The rest of the world would gang up on them so fast they wouldn't know what hit em. They would be taking ICBM'S from all over the place. Bush is nothing but trouble. Israel is still stealing Palestinian land and we keep protecting them. This is why we have all these problems in the Middle East. Everyone's a terrorist according to G W Bush. Were we terrorists when we were fighting for our homes. You got alot to learn.
While Secretary Gates may have been less gung-ho than other Bush administration officials about going into Iraq, he is nowhere on record as having opposed going into Iraq. Same goes for Dick Armitage.
Kaplan, makes some dubious asserions.
Response to Michael M:
Obviously, you are pretty uninformed but tell me this, if this is a war for oil then why are oil prices considerably higher now than before the war?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116301171607317476-Rxm2nXZneEjYNXXyQFLfjvhZ9Qg_20061208.html
Nowhere does Gates ever say he was against the war. Mr. Kaplan, please provide some evidence that Gates was against the war or please correct your post.
What is Obama thinking. Who the hell is he to tell John McCain that we can't bomb our way to lower gas prices. Who the hell is Obama to tell John Boy that we can't shoot our way to democracy. Look how things are shaping up over there Obama, we done killed them all into democracy. You people are funny. When you hate someone you can talk yourself into anything. I thought most people learned the difference between right and wrong at the age of five. Go McCain! Da mock ra ce at work.
William - please remove your blinders, saying there has been no real progress on political reconsciliation is ignoring the facts of the last several months. I believe Iraq has met nearly all of its benchmarks, including debath laws, agreeing to local elections before end of year, and passing a nationwide budget - that fills the void of passing a hydrocarbon law. Maliki stature has grown, even among the Sunni's as an honest broker. It amazes me how many far lefties still hold out that there has been amazing gains from both a security and political standpoint. Yes its fragile, and yes it can still unravel, which is even more reason the dems need to step up and actually embrace americas success in Iraq. I also find it quite hilarious that some on the left are starting to say the success we've achieved (although most of your bretheren deny its existence), is caused by the pressure the anti war dem party has placed on the govt? This is so funny its painful - if you looked up the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" , it would be defined as an anti-war democrat. I would welcome Obama re evaluating his position, because I'd love to see the level of apoplexy on the far left. That would be great theatre, half of the dems would say that shows his maturity and ability to evolve and adapt to changing situations, and the other half would throw themselves under their Prius while screaming foul.
Oh, man.
Why do I get the feeling that if oil prices were low, some fools would STILL claim that we were stealing it? It's a thesis that can't be disproven, regardless of the truth that there's no chain of logic and evidence that supports it. (So, where, exactly, is that mythical Afghani oil pipeline being built? Somewhere over where the desert unicorns play, probably.)
No chance for victory? You people, with your smug, self-righteous intellectualism have no view of history. Six years? How long did it take for the Western world - heck, for the Anglosphere, the most successful purveyors of democracy in history - to go from the Magna Carta's "the king won't have absolute power" to the U.S. Constitution's "there is no king here"?
Anyone? Nearly 600 years. Forever? You fool.
Those of you - of us- arguing with these people about the merits and demerits of this campaign are wasting your breath. These people, particularly the Obama supporters, have no need of history, of evidence, of the consequences of action or of inaction. Do you really think they care about a killing field?
Don't be silly. Have you ever seen their type make the small mental connection required to go from screwing over South Viet Nam to the killing fields of Cambodia?
I've never seen it. Never. Not once. I read about it. They literally became the first Neo-Conservatives. But I've never met an actual person who connected those dots.
And it's not because the dots aren't there. It's because THEY DON'T WANT TO CONNECT THEM. It's not about Iraq. It's not about Iraqis. It's not about the fact that the greatest opportunity of the last 15 years for real Hope and real Change to improve the lives of more human beings is and has been since its beginning the democracy project in Iraq. (Scoff? Name the alternative.)
The election of Obama isn't even about Obama. It's about THEM.
How else can one be so fervently in favor of a candidate whose policies were until recently a blank slate?
It's about their own ego, their own identity. They don't want to plant and nurture the seed in the middle east that would finally bring a decent, viable life to that awful place. They don't care.
They don't care about the bodies unless they can swing them at you. They don't care about anybody's livelihood, anybody's standard of living unless they can use it as a club against you.
Did you think they were really outraged by the body count? Pray tell, where is that outrage for Sudan, where the body count is higher?
Did you think they were really outraged by the strife and misery? Pray tell, where is their outrage for the Congo War, for the sex trade of their blessed United Nations?
Did you think they were really outraged by the poverty? Pray tell, where is that outrage for two billion people in the world who have it worse? Where was their outrage when Saddam was funneling illicit blood money (given to him by our "allies-that-will-not-be-named") into weapons and gold toilets?
Where is the outrage and the effort put in to improving their economy (which is growing faster than under Hussein; indeed most of the middle east).
Did you think they were really outraged that one country invaded another? Where is their outrage over China and Tibet?
No.
Don't waste your breath. All that matters to them is that they have some way, some tool, some talking point to pretend to themselves that they are smarter, better, more noble than their neighbors. They care only about one thing: satisfying their own self-image. They want to punch above their weight. They want to matter more than the reality their shabby lives allow.
Since they can't do it by contributing, they'll do it the way Herostratus did: by burning it all down.
Real human lives, real hope for a way out of the mess of Islamism vs. The Rest of the World (which is yet another form of detente), a real historic change in this broken world means nothing to them.
Obama is well aware of the realities of Iraq, and doesn't need to take a lesson from the likes of Gates or even Petreaus for that matter. Obama's withdrawal plan relies heavily on diplomatic support from neighboring Arab countries. In addition, presenting a tentative time table for withdrawal would prompt the Iraqi government to act more responsibly to respond to the political situation between Sunnis and Shiites. As of right now, the Iraqi government has no incentive to start acting as our presence there seems to be open ended with no strings attached. Furthermore, Iraq's neighbors know that with the current administration, a withdrawal is not likely, thus they too don't have any incentive to engage in the political situation in Iraq. Setting a time table would give a signal to the Arab world that our presence in Iraq will end, and they would need to play a major part in ensuring a stable Iraq.
Obama is not interested in winning the Iraq war and never will be. He is committed to crippling the U.S. military and to redirect the funds to whatever feel-good, do-nothing entitlement program. On top of that he will tax America into a deep recession. He is Jimmy Carter II with the only differences being a better speaking style and big ears. If he wins, Obama will not readjust his Iraq war position. Obama, being a crypto-marxist will do what he can to weaken the U.S. since it is the strongest impediment to the socialist utopian dream that has already murdered tens of millions around the world.
lan, Oil prices are higher now because our country is 11 trillion in debt and the dollar is worth like 70 cents compared to what it used to be. Oil is traded in dollars, so when we pay them for oil the exchange rate only gives them what the dollar is worth on the market. I'm not sure what it's trading at right now but it's way below a dollar. Another reason is that, our money is backed by oil. It used to be backed by gold. When we had oil in the U.S. our dollar was strong, it was worth something. We don't have no more oil in the U.S so our money is not worth the paper it's printed on. It's good on things we buy in the U.S. but not worth spit in the rest of the world. The more debt we take on fighting this war the less our money is worth. There is alot you don't understand. The foreign suppliers of oil can jack up the price with supply and demand. This is also political. They don't want another G W Bush to become president so they make the republican party look bad and we vote for someone with more brains. It has alot to do with Israel and the Palestinians. Bush supports them and they keep stealing Palestinian land. They want someone that is going to run this country fair. You can't keep spitting on everyone and expect nothing to happen.
The baby senator from Illinois is all about posturing. Reality doesn't signify. He is anointed in the waters, and not even poison-tipped arrows can touch him--except on that one heel.
Michael M:
So you admit that the war was not about oil because if it were about oil, would be cheaper. Repeating a number of truisms and non-sequiturs does little to advance your argument which is illogical and just a repeat of various very far left critiques of the Bush administration.
Sara you cant tell these people anything. They don't get it. To them it's about patriotism. They think if we leave we lose. There is nothing to lose now. We lost it already. 4100 soldiers dead for oil. Trillions in debt and a dollar that's not worth spit. They don't understand that this is about business. This is about oil contracts and building contracts. They use taxpayer money to make them rich. If these people knew the truth they wouldn't believe it. Our government is corrupt.
I was telling you why oil prices were high. Bush went to Iraq because we don't have no more oil in the U.S. To top it all off Russia and Venezuela kicked out the American oil companies from their countries. Bush and his buddies need a new cash cow. I am not lying to you. All of these crooked trade deals where our jobs are going out the door are for oil. Canada Mexico drug money from Columbia, China lends bush money to fight this war and they take our jobs. China is a communist country. We shouldn't even be dealing with them. They don't support any of our values. You have no idea how deep this runs. If you look hard enough you will find out the truth. You can be proud of America but not this government.
Gary Wilde writes: Let's turn the place over to a UN peacekeeping force staffed by troops from Muslim democracies (Turkey, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, etc.) Get the scared, arrogant, imperious Americans out!
If we withdraw precipitously (i.e., the way Senator Obama advocates), there will be NO peacekeeping force to go in for us.
Read that again: the UN will NOT authorize such a force, and the Muslim democracies named (by the way, India is not a 'Muslim democracy') will NOT put their troops in harms way. Why would they? What's the advantage to them? Why would the UN authorize something? Can you seriously imagine Russia and China voting 'yes' to a Muslim peacekeeping force?
Look at the recent history of UN peacekeeping forces elsewhere in the world. One is authorized for Somalia -- undersubscribed. One is authorized for Darfur -- ditto. These are Muslim countries. Where are the Muslim democracies to fill out these UN peacekeeping forces? They're home, and that's where they're staying.
If we withdraw precipitously, the rest of the world will write Iraq off. There will be a civil war, Iran will take what it wants to take, and no country around will do anything other than cluck their tongues and blame us.
Now if that's what you want (if, if not 'want', if that's what you're okay with) then fine. But don't think that we can withdraw from Iraq and have the UN or anyone ride to our rescue. It will NOT happen.
Why is Obama so afraid to visit Iraq? He hasn't been there in about 2 years. Saying that a joint trip with McCain is a publicity stunt is dumb, but if he really wants to go on his own, I am sure the military can figure out how to make the trip work for him -- as it has for many members of Congress. If he really wants to be commander in chief (it goes with the rest of the job, not optional), shouldn't he at least visit the war, see first-hand how it's going and not just talk about it in the abstract? Or is he afraid that the troops won't faint when he reads from the Teleprompter?
As for the poster who asserts that Obama doesn't need lessons from Petraeus, that's ridiculous. First, what military experience does Obama have? The guy is no Dwight Eisenhower. Heck, JFK -- the saint of the Democratic party -- had real combat experience. Even John Kerry had real military experience -- maybe not much, but he'd at least seen the reality on the ground. Second, more practically, how does he propose to physically get the troops out without input from the guy who's running operations there?
Sara writes, Obama is well aware of the realities of Iraq, and doesn't need to take a lesson from the likes of Gates or even Petreaus for that matter.
Even if one disagrees with these men, one should have the courtesy to listen to them. They've been dealing with the issues daily.
Obama's withdrawal plan relies heavily on diplomatic support from neighboring Arab countries.
Why would the neighboring Arab countries have any incentive to help us if we leave? Noodle this out: what's the incentive to them? Why would they do it? If we leave before the job is done (define that how you like), we are the weak horse, we will not be trusted, and we will have no diplomatic leverage over the neighboring Arab countries. Our leaving also undercuts the Maliki government -- why would the Arab countries want to deal with him then? Remember, the neighbors aren't democratic and they have little desire to promote democracy. They'll smother the Maliki government just out of principle. There will be NO 'diplomatic support' from them.
In addition, presenting a tentative time table for withdrawal would prompt the Iraqi government to act more responsibly to respond to the political situation between Sunnis and Shiites.
That ignores human psychology. Fearful people who think society is about to explode look after themselves first. They won't reach out, they'll dig in.
Furthermore, Iraq's neighbors know that with the current administration, a withdrawal is not likely, thus they too don't have any incentive to engage in the political situation in Iraq.
As I noted above, they have no incentive to deal with an Iraq that is about to fall apart. They have incentive to deal with US as they see us staying the course. They have to account for us, and that drives diplomacy.
Setting a time table would give a signal to the Arab world that our presence in Iraq will end, and they would need to play a major part in ensuring a stable Iraq.
I think that's a naive concept for that part of the world. The Arab world has no desire to see a stable, democratic Iraq. For the neighbors, stability is a strong man with a nasty secret police and an army that suppresses the people. I would hope that no American would want that kind of 'stability'.
Steve you have some way of thinking. First we were there for WMD's, Then we were there to kill the torrorists, now we are there to promote domocracy. The only way the fighting will stop is if the Iraqi government splits up the oil money. If we tap those fields and start sending oil to the U.S your going find people geting killed all over the place. What are we the masters of the world. They stopped fighting and want us out. Bush wants that oil. I don't care how you spin it this is not our business. Bush is trying to cut a deal so he can stay and get that oil. If Obama pulls us out the Bush master plan could go up in smoke. Why should we use our tax dollars to make the oil companies rich. They wiped out social security. You must work for an oil company thats why you don't care.
Amen, Amos. And, true to form, Michael M follows up with a paragraph of talking points in "refutation".
Here's hoping that if we do end up stuck with an Obamassiah presidency that he can learn from Gates and Patraeus (and the learning will probably start once he reads his first daily intelligence brief).
Sara writes "Obama is well aware of the realities of Iraq, and doesn't need to take a lesson from the likes of Gates or even Petreaus for that matter."
Obama's website states: The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
The facts on the website are not current--there has been some progress in reducing the violence below 2006 levels and resolving the political differences. Therefore, the outdated website calls into question Obama's conclusions.
I still contend that Obama needs to recognize that conditions in Iraq have changed and may necessitate changing or tweaking the plans in January 2009.
David Hare, the eminent British playwright offered the most fascinating insight into the Iraq war in his brilliant play "Stuff Happens". "Basically it's a story of a nation....that failed in one thing.......It failed to take charge of itself. Until this nation takes charge of itself, it will continue to suffer. Obama seems to understand this.
Carmel
Yes, thats it, demand a definition of victory and then immediately pounce and blame the oil companies. When it doubt, attack Christians or big business because we all know they are responsible for everything bad that happens.
All these self-righteous liberals hyperventilating about Iraq while trying as hard as possible not to mention Afghanistan or Kosovo (the "good" wars) is laughable.
And turning things over to the U.N.? Good Gaia, how do you think we got involved in Kosovo in the first place. Dimwits.
Eh, the Iraqi government has gotten more done than the new democrat-controlled U.S. Congress, even while fighting off Iranian proxies and arab bombers.
Obama is a tyro and would spend his first six months as POTUS getting rolled by the dictators of the world.
I think most everything that has been posted here is wrong. The democrats don't hate republicans because of the war in Iraq, they hate the war in Iraq because of the republicans. As long as the war is tied to Bush, they must ensure it is a failure. When it becomes an issue that is separate from him, they are free to support it or not. This applies to the democrats in the House and Senate, less so to the Kos Kids. In the general election, they will be free to throw them under the bus, so they can pick up the votes of normal people, who don't like losing wars.
I think Obama already knows this. Look at Obama's comments on June 3 when claimed the nomination. "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must." I think Obama will listen to his military advisors if elected President and adjust his policy to reflect the situation on the ground. Something the Bush administration has been repeatedly slow to do. I worry more that a McCain administration, would like the Bush administration before it, be slow to adjust to the situation on the ground if violence were to increase again than I do Obama being able to work with the military to develop a successsful exit strategy that allows us to leave Iraq with a "win" and a reasonable level of stability in the region.
Which means that Obama is a pandering fool, firing out just enough to keep the fringe loonies happy.
Obama has said he will start withdrawing battalions from Iraq a few at a time, but thats not how proper military draw-downs are done. If the man gets elected he will have quite the juggling act to accomplish between his blue-dog compatriots and a hard left base intent on stopping the war at whatever the cost.
Whether the surge is working or not, still does not change the fact that this was a poor and misleading decision in us being in Iraq. And the billions upon billions, and upon even more billions - And the billions of dollars Iraq beat will go on and on until we make a prudent exit. These billions soon to become trillions of dollars could have and should be used for the vast needs that are very much prevalent right here and right now in America for the benefit of all Americans. There is absolutely nothing for America to gain in remaining in Iraq, other than our foolish pride. And that pride certainly won't get us anywhere closer to catching Bin Ladin (the real enemy of America and the mastermind behind 911) - Nor will it lower the high price of gasoline, or bring our very much appreciated troops home safely.
As history has proven time and again, there are very good reasons to stay involved in a place like Iraq or South Korea or Europe.
Feel good-isms like "No blood for oil!" don't take into account the fact that oil is currently the commodity which makes the global economy run, whether you like it or not. Having that middle-eastern oil tap suddenly shut off would make the economic hit of 911 look like loose change.
All those barkers who think that we should just cold-turkey ourselves off oil and embrace marginal sources like solar are devoid of economic acumen and need to have their heads examined.
Mark--
I just wanted to add that it's the same people who fear-mongered us into the war that are now fear-mongering us into staying. Let's keep cool and make smart decisions. McCain is ideologically tied to the war. Obama is of the former mindset-- let's get out as soon as we can for the reasons you mentioned, making calm reasoned decisions along the way.
I know-- it's so un-American, but let's try it.
M
There is good reason for Obama to want to end the Iraq War: his lack of military experience can't be held against him.
It would be such a shame if all those dems who attacked Bush in 2004 because he wasn't a combat vet like Kerry had to turn around and attack Obama for the same thing.
That IS what they are planning to do, right?
Gil - that is assuming that those people even cared about being consistent - any argument will do - it doesn't matter how incompatible it is with what else you say. Like being for raising the wages of working men and being for illegal immigration as well.
Anyway, back to the war. The anti-war people were just a vehicle to get Barry into power. He will dump them faster than an Afro-centric congregation with an America hating minister.
Once installed, he will pull the move Robert Kaplan suggests, grab the center, and back Iraq so much we will forget he was against it.
We should leave Iraq immediately so they can kill each other. Barack is right because these savages are religious fanatics. Their lives are not worth living anyway. Go Obama!
As I read this article, above the headline, are two Exxon Mobil logos. The right side of the page contains two advertisements for Exxon Mobil requesting that I click on them to learn more. I think I've learned enough.
I own several of Mr. Kaplan's books and read all of them prior to 2003. Unlike Mr. Kaplan, I learned some things from his books about failed democratic attempts. Democracy is impossible when competing institutions do not exist to share power.
After 5 years of meaningless destruction, Iraq STILL does not have competing institutions. After 5 years the "all the emails I receive" address a military situation that belies the obvious, i.e. both sides of the future civil war are waiting for us to leave (or a pretext) to fight each other for control. Al-Sadr's recent decision to end his cease fire spells trouble for his people, the Iraqis, and us, and is based upon people like Kaplan claiming Iraq is a de facto province of the US. I don't have the space to lament his unfortunate love for the military and belief in their every statement.
Mr. Kaplan was wrong about the war (and rather insulting to "leftists"), wrong about US strategy pre-surge, he's wrong about the Surge now (he's akin to the guy watching a hurricane coming and bragging that it's not raining)....it's sort of hard to listen to him now.
I used to expect so much more, but this essay is so typical of neocon ranting: I was wrong a bunch of times, but you're still listening and I may be right when I guess this time.
Kaplan has no idea what the mission is, no idea when it will end, and doesn't care. Like many on the Far Right, he just counts on calling everyone "pussies" and "cowards" until the Iraqis just stop fighting. If that takes two months, two years, or 20 years, well, they weren't planning on leaving any way.
Yeah, Exxon Mobil is in league with Bush and probably Rove too. They conspired to have a secret switch installed in the Exxon main office which magically bumps the price of oil as high as they need in order to get more money.
Forget about those stupid ideas such as 'supply and demand' or 'cafe standards' or 'gasoline taxes'. No no, its better just to blame Evil Big Oil™ and lie to your sophisticated friends that you take a bicycle everywhere you go.
After 5 years of meaningless destruction, Iraq STILL does not have competing institutions.
I hear ya man. I mean look at Kosovo, we have been there for over ten years and they couldn't even do what Iraq has done, which is to form a functioning government.
Thank God a righteous (or is it lefteous) democrat started that war for us; could you imagine the marches we would have to endure were Clinton a Republican?
"NO WAR FOR...uhh...er...what does Kosovo export?"
I don't have the space to lament his unfortunate love for the military
And the liberals wonder why they have the reputation that they do.
Once installed, he will pull the move Robert Kaplan suggests, grab the center, and back Iraq so much we will forget he was against it. Posted by TCD | June 17, 2008 12:15 AM
The leftonian moonbats wouldn't forget which would make for quite the parade of Kucinich-like fools the DFL would run in 2010, much less 2012.
Or else all will be forgiven and the nation will have to endure listening to the democrats expound about how they knew the war was necessary in the first place, retreat never really being a viable option.
Typical.
It's strange how the war in Iraq has become a "democracy project." Every reputable poll I've seen says that a large majority of Iraqis want a decisive withdrawal of coalition forces. Meanwhile, the U.S. is building super-bases and a super-embassy.
Just admit it. The U.S. has never really been for "democracy." See Syria, Iran, Venezuela, and many other attempted coups of democratically elected governments, all led by the U.S. If it's clearly for just national security, then why are all these coups kept secret from the public. It begs many questions. I find it funny how those same countries have now become "rogue states," operating against freedom. How ironic.
MIchael M - When you have nuts like Bush & McCain that are willing to bomb a country for oil, would you stop making nuclear bombs to protect yourself
Except you are wrong on the timing. The "green light" for going for N Korean Nukes, Libyan nukes, Iranian missiles and nukes was given by the leaders of those countries in the mid-90s. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the efforts of the AQ Khan Network or crash programs to get ICBM and MRBM missile programs to launch-ready status or the efforts of the 3 to get bombs.
Just like those efforts pre-dated Bush's effort to get a national missile defense that could take out "most of a few" nuke missiles launched at us or our nearby bases or allies like France and Japan - by the NORKs or a a rogue Muslim nation.
And yes, 9/11 also had it's "green light" given to it's mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by AQ leadership months before Bush was in office.
National missile defense is another area where Obama and other Hard Left Democrats have abandoned sanity for ideology. It works, contrary to critics that said it was "impossible" to stop a NORK nuclear-tipped missile salvo from wiping out US bases in the Pacific, Japan, even striking the mainland after the next missile phase unless 6-Party talks stop it. Iran has a missile that can threaten most of Europe and Israel, of course. And apparantly they got a modern warhead design for a missile-ready bomb from the AQ Kahn network and only wait on enough enriched uranium...
Obama and the hard Left would be absolutely stupid now to cut and run from a workable, multi-layer missile defense.
All those barkers who think that we should just cold-turkey ourselves off oil and embrace marginal sources like solar are devoid of economic acumen and need to have their heads examined. Posted by Paulo, Sao Cordello, Portugal
And Paulo, my best wishes and hope that Portugal makes giant oil or gas finds off their shores like Brazil just did. Couldn't happen to a better people than the Portugee.
In America, the idea that oil is a trivial matter and discardable tomorrow along with nukes and coal in favor of abundant cheap solar and wind that "just needs a little R&D" - is a mass delusion that the Left and media with a collective ignorance of engineering and science is just astonishing - foisted on the American people.
So the guy who is right needs to listen to those who are not only wrong, but guilty of war crimes, correct? Talk about chutzpah! The idea of Barack Obama giving the time of day to warmongers and the hacks who support them is ridiculous.
If he's smart, the minute he takes office he'll order the immediate withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq and announce the formation of a war crimes tribunal to prosecute those who lied this nation into killing over a million Iraqis. The only thing Obama should want to hear from the warmongers is their guilty pleas and presentencing statements.
The fact that he was right and they were wrong isn't just a matter of trivia, as if Obama won some kind of bar bet. It's a sign that Obama isn't willing to kill off a million or more brown people (plus 4000 Americans) for the sake of "credibility".
Sponsored by...
Exxon-Mobil!
It is my opinion that the level of what strikes me as outrageous ignorance of commentors on these things is striking--and the names they call one another is also striking("ignorance", although generally interpreted as a highly-charged put-down, is used by me as a bland, literal description--ignorance in the sense of simply lacking knowledge of facts.)
And, no, I am not siding with the comments of Obama-and-liberal bashers here--they, though not alone, seem to me to be among the most ignorant.
I applaud and respect those that clearly post their opinions as being their opinions, instad of claiming they have a monopoly on the truth.
But I gotta' say something specific about ol' Amos' post: Amos, Amos, Amos. You obviously have a head on your shoulders, but your anger seems to have gotten the better of you. I have no way of accurately measuring it (nor am I going to spend the time and money to do so), but I believe you are wrong about your premise that Obama supporters were/are not outraged about all the other issues of human suffering/mistreatment/inequities you mentioned. First of all, they are not somehow a monolithic group, thinking in lock-step. Even if 90% of them were as you described, don't you think that to stereotype them all would be disrespectful to that 10%? I have spoken to, and read from, enough Obama supporters that clearly ARE outraged by some or all the issues you questioned about, that I would not be able to surmise as you declared. If I considered my data set to be a representative sample, I would say that 80% of Obama supporters are outraged by the things you suggested they are not. Oh, except 30% of THOSE are long-tme registered Republicans that would never be caught DEAD admitting it to other Republicans, because they stayed silent for decades while fellow party leaders and operatives created and supported the monsters that perpetrated those ills. How many Obama supporters have YOU canvassed on those issues? Perhaps you have direct experiences I could benefit from--I will never KNOW the truth, but the more perspectives I can add to my knowledge base, the closer I may become. We are all like blind men trying to describe an elephant by feeling only one of its parts. I suggest that at least a great many, and I hope and pray that most, people who support Obama do so because they truly want to see our government try, and perhaps actually ACT nobly. NOT that I think (and maybe many others don't either) that an Obama Presidency will create that change "overnight" (politics and power-brokering and economic inertia seem WAY to complex and ponderous for that). But, just as you correctly pointed out that seeds of change can take hundreds of years to grow to become forests, if we don't start planting, we ain't got a chance. Oh, and BTW, I SERIOUSLY wish you would re-phrase your comment about "Islamism vs the Rest of the World" to remove any inference that no other belief system shares that problem (what about Mormons, for instance, or Babtists on the McKenzie River in Oregon who preach that if you don't go to THEIR church, you are going to hell, and teach their children to tell their school mates that, or "God-fearing Americans" that proclaim "kill all sand niggers"?), and remove any possibility of infering that ALL believers or worshippers of Islam believe they are against the rest of the world. Unless, of course, you really did mean those things, in which case, I'd pray for your soul, 'cause you would need it.
think about this one:
Is it possible that the debate about which form of energy, and its sources, we "need", for dogmatic, political, practical, theoretical, ideological, pragmatic, or any other reasons is all just an ARTIFACT of believing that our HABITS of living and operating socio-economically are somehow OK, sacrosanct, and/or inescapable, when they might really just be CHOICES, and maybe even the WRONG choices made incrementally over millenia, in response to short-term (one human lifetime or less) desires for comfort? IS it possible that we could collectively, or even individually, use our highly-touted REASON to question whether we have confused habit with need or with intelligent planning for a sustainable human existence on this planet? Jus because we now consume X amnount of BTUs of combustible fuel to run all the ships and planes and web servers, and, and and . . .does that mean we HAVE to?
I totally agree with your opinion that Obama should reaccess the situation on the ground and talk to the troops. However, I hate to be the one to point it out to all you brilliant people out there; but has it occurred to any of you that the reason the surge seems to be working is because both the goverment of Iraq and even the radicals have now realised that very soon American troops will begin to withdraw because hopefully Bush and co will not be there to ensure they remain ie. A change of policy is eminent? Trust me, they have now realised that the best way to get American troops out of there country is by not fighting. Fanatical Militants do not jst give up because there to many in opposition.
Ah...the NEW conventional wisdom. Sure, we lied you into this disastrous mess that costs trillions of your tax dollars and untold Iraqi and American lives, but hey you're not looking too smart now that we're funneling even MORE of your tax dollars to Sunni tribal leaders so they can dial back the killing a notch.
Can I get a column at The Atlantic too? The bar seems to be pretty low. I mean I know I don't have a rolodex full of prep school connections, but I guarantee you I can come up with better stuff than this.
There will be no American "victory" in Iraq, there are only two possibilities: swift and orderly withdrawal with the safety of our troops negotiated with the Shiite militias or continued occupation and the slow bleed-out of our military power, such as it is.
RE: our military power. All those aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, drones and other nifty Military Channel toys are useless to fight the fight on the ground, conducted at close range and against an inexhaustible supply of Iraqi fighters.
A few months ago we were informed that the Taliban had taken massive casualties in Afghanistan. The other day, they freed a thousand of their prisoners and are massively on the move again. Behold the future of occupied Iraq.
Iran has "won" the Iraq war. There's no changing that. Get used to it.
Here's the problem. Even if we achieve "victory" on Bush and McCain's terms, we would still have installed a pro-Iranian government that is also hostile toward Israel. If facts and reality still matter, that's a loss.
Wow. Lots of defeatism here, and no clue what the word "victory" means.
Originally, I defined victory as a dead Mr. Saddam Hussein with his government out of power and no chance to come back, but acknowledged that our leaders had more than that in mind. They wanted to send shock waves through the Middle East and try to "shake things up"...presumably so that when they resettled it would all be freer and more democratic. Whatever you think of the methods, that's a laudable goal.
So for me, victory was achieved long ago. The broader goal hasn't been met yet, although shock waves have certainly been felt all over the ME and beyond.
I'd define victory as a situation where we can leave with most of our troops, and the Iraqis are able to stick together enough to keep most of the terrorist groups under control and defend themselves from Iran for at least 20 years (beyond that is subject to future events). It would be nice if we could also have a military base or two, same as we used to have in Saudi, but I wouldn't want to have to leave a force the size of what we had to leave in place to deter the Norks.
That situation isn't here yet, but things are now trending that way nicely. I would encourage the next president NOT to set a timetable, at least not publicly. That just gives our enemies a target to shoot for. "If we can just hold out until XXXX, we'll be in the clear."
Personally, I think Obama knows all this very well. He's pandering to the Left, same as McCain is forced to pander to the Right on some issues where he disagrees with them. Obama knows that it's sheer lunacy to cut and run on a war where the corner has visibly been turned and we're near a level of success that most would agree is at least in the neighborhood of "victory". Especially when leaving now means coming back to do it all over again inside of a decade, when a couple more years could lock it down indefinitely.
Iran, however, is already defeated, and they know it, too. Where do you suppose they're getting all the money they send to people like Hamas and Hesbollah? But for the recent oil price spike, the regime in Iran would have already fallen. THAT'S why we haven't invaded. We're watching carefully to see whether their nuke program beats their impending bankruptcy. That's also why we're seeing lots and lots of new auto technologies being developed. In 2000, who even knew about hybrid cars? I had heard rumblings, along with "expert" opinion saying they were a minor fad that would pass quickly. But if we can drive down the price of oil, Iran (and the current regime in Venezuela, and probably others) is finished. Plug-in hybrids along with increased non-oil electric power generation and efficiency are the only realistic way I see to accomplish that in the near-to-medium term. I'm going to buy the first one I see that I can afford.
It's painful and will likely get more so, but when it's all done we'll be mostly weaned off oil and the ME will be the backwater that it would be if oil was never discovered there. THAT is the ultimate victory, I guess.
What might be the chances of symbolic closure facilitated by Iran? We understand closure on many different levels: Marines plant flag atop Mt. Suribachi; Apollo 11 crew: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind;” President Bush, “Job well done.”
Closure matters when it can be used broadly to represent goal achievement. It can influence national public opinion.
What might be the likelihood that Iran realizing the importance of a symbolic moment to US mind set, at the perfect moment (a presidential political campaign) secretly decides to create closure for Americans’ sense of just war by giving up Osama Bin Laden? And, would we take him?
Rich: you wrote
"Here's the problem. Even if we achieve "victory" on Bush and McCain's terms, we would still have installed a pro-Iranian government that is also hostile toward Israel. If facts and reality still matter, that's a loss."
Since Israel is a strategic liability for the US, I'm not bothered.
We can get along quite well with both Iran and Iran's allies. After all, we've eliminated Saddam, their greatest threat. With any luck, they'll still be willing to help us get rid of Osama & Co. We need all the help we can get in that area, and our troops transferred from Iraq will come in very handy in stabilizing Afghanistan. For sure the Iranians will want to squash any Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Better their troops than ours.
Forget about Iran abandoning their nuclear plans unless Israel is prepared to de-nuclearize. They'd be nuts to leave themselves defenseless.
One thing. If a person starts saying this war is for Oil, they generally lose the argument right there. I work the oil industry (engineering firm), and I am generally far more informed then the public. I really doubt I have the space here (nor the time, really, I have better things to do) to argue it. Just on those merits.
But look at a few things. Iraq will need a billion dollars per year just to get oil at it's current level, and estimates are nearly 30 billion just to fix it right, after so many years of not keeping it up.
In that, they only produce 2 million barrels a day, of which about 500,000 comes to the US. We spent how much money rebuilding Iraq?
Even if the government was directly taking the oil, that makes NO SENSE. The argument doesn't add up, at all.
I mean, take a few moments, please argue that. Please find a way to add that up so it works, in some stupid way. It takes a few minutes to look up Iraq, a nation that has a 90 Billion GDP, and we have spent $800 Billion occupying it, and helping rebuild it.
It doesn't add up. Not at all. That argument makes no sense. That we spent that much for what, a cut of Iraq? To occupy it for imperialistic reasons? I mean, please, be a bit more intelligent.
Michael M: Ah, you completely missed my question, and my argument. You ranted for a good long paragraph and while making good points, didn't at all address a bit of what I talked about.
The why and how we got into this war is all past. We can't change that. Wow, mistakes were made. In a war no less. That never happened before. What, bad intelligentce? You don't say. That was years ago. YEARS. Okay, move past that to the point we are right now.
What to do.
At this point, we have a choice to stay in, or get out. My point is (which you seemed to have missed) is that in the nations we have stayed in, they have flourished.
In the nations we have left, they haven't. The nations we have kept an on going military presence in they have done even better then most. And we end up having a stronger, more secure world becouse of it.
So, Michael, if you could please answer my inital question and comment: Is it better, historically speaking, for the US to leave a nation, or is it better for the US to stay in that nation?
Can you actually stay on topic (the topic being the US leaving Iraq, in the article, above) and answer that? Without including your bovinal logic why we went into Iraq (which is so 5 years ago)?
Josh
@Josh - your analogy is a false one, and frankly these constant efforts to mooch off the WWII shine are getting old.
Leaving aside for a moment the vast differences in how and why we went to war with Iraq vs. WWII you completely ignore the cultural differences inherent in occupying a muslim country.
Trust me, young teenage Baghdad girls aren't going to invite American GI's up to their flat to drink schnapps and fool around. We invaded their country on false pretenses (something tells me the fact that it happened five years ago probably doesn't matter much to the average Iraqi), they still operate under essentially fundamentalist tribal rule and nothing....NOTHING...is ever going to make the situation there remotely like previous occupations.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of all this wishful thinking. I mean if the Crusades, France, England and Spain weren't successful in this endeavour in the last millenium, I'm sure we can come up with something. Let's keep funneling trillions of taxpayer dollars and wasting thousands of lives in the hopes that one day those candy and flowers we were promised will be strewn at our feet.
This, mind you, is the SERIOUS position.
Jen K,
Perhaps you missed the past two weeks of new. The Iraqi government has rejected our proposal for a status of forces agreement. The reason: because it's generally seen has good for the existing governments political chances in the next election. Additionally, the largest block of Shia have decided to align with Iran and have declared open war on the United States.
Try to keep up.
In any event, the situation you describe, the so called victory, is indeed laughable. If Iraq does descend into a mass killing field with reprisals as the norm, it will largely at the hands of a stable, democratically elected government, not terrorists. To think that democracy is by nature peaceful is wishful thinking - the type of wishful thinking that lead people to believe that a democracy could be thrown together as easily as a bike on Christmas morning. Had did that work out?
If the Iraqis decide to make a mess of their own country, that will not be our fault. The have a democractically elected government and the country is in no danger of becoming a failed state.
This talk of victory is pure politics for American domestic consumption.
Mr. Kaplan, Words such as victory and honor are so mindless as they apply to the incomprehensible nature of the U.S. military in Iraq. If the members of the armed forces inform you of their optimistic hopes of achieving victory, why are so many of them on anti-depressant mood altering drugs and why so many experience PTSD and cannot adjust to civilian or personal family life. Individuals who understand what victory means and feel secure in their achievements do not become mentally ill. I suggest you interview military and VA sytem psychiatric health care personal. George W. Strother M.D.
Mike:
I hate to repeat the old meme, but "Those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them."
We have a nice 100 years of facts you seem to want to ignore. Your choice, but go ahead. And if you haven't kept up, in it is the local sheiks, leaders and individuals that are letting the US troops into their homes in Iraq, preparing dinner for them, and talking with them. Read a few blogs from Iraq. I suggest another Michael, Michael Yon. It is really funny that you mention that exact statement, about US troops being invited into houses (though the young girls thing is, well... I will not go there) which is central to COIN operations. And exactly what we are doing.
Lets see you make a list of every major war or confrontation, like I did, and take a peek at what is and isn't. Before you dismiss my argument. I want to see examples that prove your comments. Right now, you are just guessing. And demining the people of Iraq based on their religion. Am I correct in you saying, because they are Muslim, they are less then the other nations we have got to war with, and less then the people of Japan and Germany? Less then S. Korea? They are just not worthy of our support? For shame. What a racist and insulting statement. And highly ignorant.
Starting WW I, where we left Germany to rebuild itself, and learning from that mistake, which produced WWII, we helped rebuild, and now Germany is wholey differnt then it was. That was a huge lesson. Germany of 1918 could be said to be quite a bit like Iraq now. But lets look for more recent one for you.
How about the difference between Bosnia and Solmalia. Both Muslim to a large extent. One we stayed in, the other we left. This is just a few years ago, so I hope it isn't to far back. I know, UN, blah blah blah. The basic premise: We stayed in one, left the other. Which is better off?
Go just a little further back. Vietnam. Worse the Iraq on so many levels, not even a "war" by some standards. 10 times the troops lost, police action, etc. What happened when we left? Oh yeah, the killing fields.
How about Korea? N. Korea is what compared to S. Korea, where we still are?
Do I need to get out the crayons?
Okay, name a country we had a serious war with that we left that is doing better then a comparable country we stayed in?
While you like to argue like it is 2003 still, to argue the why it happened, like several people, that doesn't change the fact that we are now choosing to stay and rebuild, or pull out.
And forgetting the lessons of WW II is stupid, no matter how you are trying to marginalize it, trivialize it, or just flat out say it doesn't matter any more. Or that the Iraqi people are not up the the level of Japanese, or German, or Korean. It does. Now, maybe more then ever. History repeats itself because people like you do not care to see how it is still relavent.
If we were going to war, your arguments of the how and why would be very relavent. But we went to war 5 years ago. Okay, lets just take it that you are right. It was about Oil, Bush gets a huge pay off or what ever, and he lied to get it. Does it change that we are rebuilding a nation after we went to war, instead of letting it hang there and fail? No.
We need to look historically at what we have done in the past after this amount of time. And the answer is, without our support, a post war nation tends to fail. Can you say that doesn't happen? Honestly? How is this different? What, the people of Iraq are really that different, then say, the people feudal Japan? Of S. Korea?
I think you are basing your decision to leave Iraq based on politics, and not on what we should do to keep Iraq from becoming another Somalia, N. Korea, or Vietnam.
Lets make it crystal clear. Did you see Charlie Wilson's war? It made exactly the same point. We spent millions (billions?) helping Afganistan fight the Soviets. But nothing on helping them reconstruct, not even money for schools and such. The Taliban rose out of that, and were directly involved with 9/11. That is most likely exactly what could happen if we do not work on reconstruction the nation, if we just pull out. Is that a recent enough example for you? Clear enough?
To say we should pull out, do you believe that the lives of the Iraqi people do not matter? That and Iraq killing field is fine? That future stability in Iraq might be to our benefit?
It is sad to think your politics have stripped you of a humanity to a point that would accept that as an option.
Name a nation we abandoned that became an ally, that prospered, that was stable, after the US pulled out. Name a nation that didn't have horrific problems when we decided to make the decision you are promoting. I will give you the past 100 years.
I doubt you can do it.
But you are arguing that now, this one time, because the Iraqi people are either so talented, or so screwed up, that they will either will be able to do it on their own, with out us, or not be able to do it with our help, no matter what we do.
The past 100 years, millions of people killed, prove you flat out wrong.
I can't believe you are
What's the mission? To stay there until the Kurds and the Shi'ites agree to share THEIR oil revenue with the hated Sunnis? When would they ever pay such blackmail? In 100 years?
Why not bribe the Sunnis to move out of their walled ghettoes and then partition Iraq into Sunnistan, Shistan, and Kurdistan?
Then,on to Afghanistan!
Posted by Marvin Sussman | June 16, 2008 3:56 PM