StupidMoniker: The reason we continue to discuss the relative wisdom of getting into this war in the first place is that we, as a nation, are faced with an extremely important decision this year. In this year, in which we are faced with a horribly bad situation in Iraq, a situation in which there are bad solutions and worse ones, in a year in which we might at any time find ourselves in a similarly bad (but worse, given how thinly stretched our troops already are) situation in Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we are electing a new commander in chief. In making this important decision, it is meaningful to consider the positions of the major candidates at the start of this ill-conceived war as well as their positions since then, such that we as a nation -- a nation which has decided pretty much definitively, regardless of what we do going forward, that this war was a mistake and a big one -- might avoid such mistakes in the future. We have three candidates to consider. One supported the war from the start but says that knowing what she knows now she would not support a similar war under similar circumstances. She believes it was a mistake to start this war. Another supported the war from the start and, while he believes it's been mismanaged, still believes it was the right decision to start this war and would make the same decision again. The third opposed the war from the start and would not start such a war in the future. In making important decisions about the future we consider the past because it matters and because it is instructive. I'm sure I don't need to quote the cliche to you about how people who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them and I'm sure I don't need to convince you of the truth of that cliche. But I do need to ask you this: When did you and Jorge and basso and the rest go from steadfastly defending the decision to go to war in Iraq, along with snide admonitions to the rest of us that we would be proven wrong by history, to not wanting to talk about that anymore? When did the decision to go to war, a thing you were all so het up about and so excited to discuss and defend, become such an untoward and offensive subject of conversation?
But the left doesn't talk about the reasons or lack thereof for staying in the war, they talk about the reasons for going to war. When people mention reasons for staying in the war, the response is usually that the goalposts are being moved, or that because early predictions by some decision makers were wrong, nothing war supporters say should be given any credence. I have no problems with discussions about the reasons for going to war. I think we would be better served having those discussions when the war is over, but am fine with discussing them at any point if that is main topic. I still think going to war was the right decision, and depending on what we do from this point forward, I still think I will be proven right in the end. I do NOT think that the stated reasons for going to war that Democrats love to argue about have any bearing on what we should do from this point forward. Does the lack of WMDs in Iraq mean that the optimum result will be achieved by leaving now? Wouldn't it be better to consider the consequences of staying or leaving instead of dwelling on public statements by the president 5 years ago?
SM: Please see my post above. And, if you feel inclined, please answer my question. I will answer yours now. Correct me if you feel I'm wrong, but it seems to me that those that support staying in Iraq do so based on the idea that things are improving there. Certainly security has improved there some, though that seems to be an up and down thing. But when the surge was proposed, improvement of security there was not a goal in itself. It was a goal in service of political reconciliation. And ONLY in service of political reconciliation. The argument then, you might recall, was that reconciliation could only occur under improved security. So a whole hell of a lot more troops went over there, many dying or being permanently maimed and/or injured in the process, and we have had very little movement toward reconciliation. Political reconciliation is the ONLY meaningful measure of improvement in Iraq. Why, you might ask? Because it always, always, always has been. Iraq has always been on the brink of civil war, but that civil war was contained by a brutal dictator through a regime of violence and fear of violence. When we removed that dictator, we pushed the country over the brink and into the civil war that was waiting to happen. Our continued presence there does nothing to deal with the warring factions there, since we aren't aiming our guns at any one of those factions -- we're aiming our guns at anyone with guns. And that's pretty much everyone. The only way our presence helps is if it allows the government there (or any other entity that might fill the void) to negotiate a lasting peace. As it turns out, the surge didn't help with that. No, not at all. And providing temporary security in a country where ethnic groups want to totally freaking eliminate each other might look nice for a little while but does nothing to solve the underlying problem. Phased withdrawal and/or redeployment is anything but a perfect solution. The reason I favor it, among various horribly bad 'solutions,' is that it might (a) force the Iraqis to deal with each other and begin political negotiations, and (b) Americans will stop dying there in the service of a policy without a plan. If you disagree with the above, please, please, please tell me what the plan is. What does victory look like and how, in the simplest layman's terms, do we get there? I can't help mentioning again here that we all told you this would happen, but okay. That's done. We were right, you were wrong and that sucks. I wish it had been the other way around. But let's leave that aside. You've heard my proposal. It's focused on the future and not the past. And I can assume from everything you've ever posted here you don't agree with it. So, okay... What do YOU propose we do next? And how does it get us closer to peace (and god willing prosperity) in Iraq?
SM: Thanks for your answer to my previous question. I was writing my reply when you added it in edit. I explained why I think it's important to talk about the lead up to war in the context of the presidential election. I don't understand the either/or thing. I think we can talk about the lead up to war and the current situation at the same time. But I am still curious how we got from you guys being eager and willing to talk about the decision to go to war to saying 'that's the past, let's talk about the future.' Especially in the case of historically dickish ones such as Jorge and basso that talk is always accompanied by a superior tone which seems really stupid coming from ones who delighted for years in promising that initial decision would make all naysayers look stupid and have since, somehow, converted such that they are offended by the mere mention of that original decision. But I'm far more interested in hearing your opinion about how maintaining a presence in Iraq helps in any way whatsoever to create a long term peace and/or prosperity there. Guns can only solve civil wars if you choose one side and kill a whole lot of people on the other. We are not on one side of this civil war. How do you propose we use our guns to help?
Since I'm up late and have nothing better to do I'd like to address these points directly. Why would it be better to wait until the war is over to talk about how we got there? And I ask that specifically because if things go as you propose this war will last a while and we might find ourselves, in the interim, in a similar situation. Bush has already made a similar case for a possible war with Iran and McCain has signaled support for that. Hillary is also in a grey zone here given her vote on the resolution to designate the Iranian military as terrorists. We are making an enormous decision as to who to hand the keys to in a time of tremendous international instability. Why, in the face of that, should we wait to consider the circumstances that led us there in the year of a presidential election? What benefit does that serve? And at what cost? I repeat my request that you explain, in even the most basic terms, what our military might do that would produce a good result. Bush has been unwilling to do this. McCain too. Please explain what we are doing there. (NOTE: In order to answer "winning" you must also identify an enemy. Tricky, huh?) I don't love to argue this at all anymore. After 5 years, 4,000 American deaths, a lot more American injuries and Iraqi deaths and injuries and many billions of dollars, I just want to know what the plan is. Most of the country thinks it was a mistake, most of the country wants out and most of Congress wants out. And our Iraq policy is being held hostage by a president whose only plan is "not to lose." WHAT IS THE PLAN? They don't give out first place trophies to let us know when it's over. Define victory and explain how we're supposed to achieve it. That's frankly all I want to argue about now so people can stop dying in vain. And I don't love anything about it. No. The lack of WMD's doesn't have anything to do with the "optimum result" (whatever that is -- what IS that?). It has to do with not making the same mistake again. And I would be very happy to discuss the consequences of staying and leaving with anyone who would join me in the real world -- a world in which we are in the middle of, and on no side of, a civil war with no plan to end it and no strategy except "not surrendering" (to whom, no one knows, since we have no clear enemy there). Describe a perfect situation, the dreamiest possible outcome, SM. Maybe then we could consider the consequences of various approaches together and possibly even agree on something approximating a best solution.
Funny how we're still operating under "emergency provisions" from 9/11. When did we declare war through congress... oh wait we didn't. War abroad is used to justify tyranny at home. Just wait until they begin jailing the dissenters. Is it just me or does Bush remind you of Woodrow Wilson? Bush, thankfully, didn't experiment in social darwinism.
Oh yeah, one more thing, I love the idea of going to war for the rich. Solves class conflict problems at the same time by sending the poor out to die.
Batman has already partially answered this but to follow up. The way our system works is a marketplace of ideas and the challenge for any particular idea gaining promenence is to consider why that idea should be even considered. In maintaining any course of action inevitably they reasons why we are involved that in that course of action is important. Its not enough to just make an existential argument for it that we are doing this now and things would be worse if we stop without considering what got us into in the first place. The problem with the argument of "lets just talk about what happens from here" is that the reasons we got into it do matter if that reasoning is faulty. Let me give you an admittedly imperfect analogy but its all I can come up with on short notice. There is a lot of debate regarding Global Warming and it is a fact that there is some global warming going on. On one side people say that Global warming is being primarily caused by man made actions while on the other side people are saying it isn't. Everyone pretty much agrees that there is some level of warming going on. Now the side that says it is caused by man made actions will say that debate is over we know the Earth is warming so we need to go with a course that reduces it how we got to it is no longer important but our response is. On the other side though they say that how we got to it is important since our efforts might do things like harm our economy and if man made global warming isn't actually what is happening then we are doing a lot of things for little gain. Now both sides might agree that the actions that might combat man made global warming has side benefits of conserving energy and resources but the argument for continuing that course is primarily driven by the argument of whether global warming is human made or not human made. The cause matters in the marketplace of ideas as much so as arguing whether to continue the course of action.
I find it ironic that now the war supporters are using this argument that the people against the war aren't about getting anything done because the people who oppose the war are always talking about the past. as if this allegation is getting anything done. its just petty bickering and highly ironic.
It seems to me that the immediate goal of this presidency is simply not to be forced to leave during his term,. If we get McCain than his immediate goal will be the same to hang-on and pass it to his successor. No end to the occupation (defeat) on his watch. Aside from the short term ideally from the Bush-McCain point of view (and they do seem identical or no differences have been made) we want to stay there until we have peace between the warring factions and have a government in place that will consent to a peaceful occupation by us for a hundred years, with us having several large bases. We want to dominate their oil economy and have an Iraq that is not too friendly with Iran and not supportive of Hamas or those who are against the expansion of Israel. Realistically it doesn't seem this goal can be achieved. The majority of Iraqis want us to leave and the majority of Americans want us to leave, too. Under those conditions how long can our volunteer army keep paying the price. To keep Sadr, the Sunnis and others who want us to leave and who may very well want to fight each other, we have to keep bombing and fighting. The more of this we do, the more civilians we kill and the more the populace turns against us, despite our good deeds such as repairing schools, hospitals, roads and other things they are all too aware that we destroyed. The longer we stay the more Iran's influence grows as they help out, too but without bombing civilians or occupying troops. We have put a government in place that is not that popular and is basically dependent on our military to stay in power. We keep trying to create an Iraqi military that will support the government we created and not the Sunni insurgents, the Iranian oriented Shia or the Sadr folks who seem to be the majority or at least the largest group of the Shia. Logically Sadr would seem the guy for us to work with, but unfortunately he is an Iraqi nationalist who has never been in favor of our occupation, so we keep trying to find someone else to work with.
Also, people need to pay attention what's going on currently. The administration is trying to set the course of troop levels for the next president to deal with and not run it by Congress. This is what Hillary was questioning because the Iraqis actually get a say in this but our congress doesn't.
To keep it real. ********* Five more U.S. soldiers die in Iraq Updated 17h 59m ago BAGHDAD (AP) — Five U.S. soldiers died in Iraq, including three killed in roadside bombings in Baghdad and north of the capital, the military said Wednesday. That raised to 17 the number of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq since Sunday http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-04-09-iraq-soldiers_N.htm?csp=34
As everything else in George Bush’s life, he will walk away from his mess and it will take the hard work of adults to clean up.
^^^ Most ill-informed post ever in the history of the BBS? First, Obama was not in office to support or not-support the war at the beginning. He made a speech, much different than a vote, about the war. Since then, he has voted for every aspect of the war. Sorry, but that doesn't match your description, Bats. Second, McCain was the one with the foresight to see that we needed a counter-insurgency surge to deal with the violence a year ago. He led on that issue and took a huge political risk. He has courage in the face of a 'crisis'. He was absolutely 100% correct in his assessment and the results have proven him correct. McCain had the HUEVOS to go against public opinion to do what was RIGHT for America, the troops, and our strategic interests abroad. Obama just lets the winds of public opinion sway him around and does what is popular. That's not leadership, that's just following the poorly informed public. McCain has served our nation. He has a son serving our nation today. He has what it takes to lead. Obama just simply does not. He's in over his head and just has no experience. To even think about him as Commander in Chief a total joke. Talk about unqualified.
"He didn't have a lot of experience in running a presidential campaign, did he?" -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed on Good Morning America, when asked if Sen. Barack Obama had enough experience to be president.
You aren't that stupid to believe that only people in office support or don't support a war are you? [/quote]
Did you evern LISTEN to what General Patraeus had to say earlier this week? I doubt it. Your post suggests you did not listen. Furthermore, you likely have no interest in listening to a plan, all you and your ilk care about is b****ing. Regardless of what you and your no-huevos ilk think, the troops have a plan and are executing on it.
