Someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue better cut Armstrong Williams a check, and soon, because he is sounding shrill:
The deterioration of Iraq serves as an unmistakable reminder of the flawed manner in which we carried out this mission. A global democracy works only when countries trust one another. America’s insistence on burrowing into Iraq without substantial proof that they possessed weapons of mass destruction frayed that trust, and will inevitably sew problems into our foreign relations missions for decades to come. It also served as a touchtone, uniting our enemies. The longer we stay, the more people will come from all over the world to fight us—not to fight for Iraq, but to fight against the United States.
During a recent press conference Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the insurgency lacks a galvanizing mission. That it is predicated merely upon brutal acts of violence, and therefore cannot sustain itself over the long haul. He has a point. He just misses it…
And indeed, the struggle not to be lorded over by America has proved quite galvanizing. Every day insurgents strap bombs to their bodies and detonate themselves in public squares. Get it? The insurgents are not trying to defeat us. They are willing to die, just to take some of us with them. We cannot win this kind of war of attrition. US soldiers are dying at a rate of one per day. Meanwhile the rest of the world is having trouble supporting the United States. You cannot lead in a global democracy, if people do not trust you. It is undeniable that we went about this in a very flawed manner. We need to admit that. We cannot solve the problem of terrorism by asserting our will on the world. Meanwhile, the deterioration of Iraq continues, serving as a sad reminder of the failed promise of this mission, and the need to pull out.
I don’t agree with his concession of defeat, but Aye, Carumba!
(via DC Media Girl)
Brad R.
Just trying to build up your credibility with the left again, John… oh wait, no, you said you were against defeat, you’re just another right-wing shill ;-)
Mike S
He’s obviously pandering, hoping to bring in th ever elucive Simsons fan.
norbizness
I paid him $4 to say that.
James Emerson
I used to believe in the tooth fairy too, and was sorely disappointed when she turned out to have been based on a lie…
There is still hope for you John, but I suspect it will take time for those war blinders to fall off. There is a tipping point out there awaiting.
James Emerson
Maybe this story from Editor & Publisher will do it, maybe not. The thing about “staying the course” is that there are plenty more stories in the queue.
See what Cindy started?
Sorry I couldn’t link the story, something seems wrong with your link button.
Sinequanon
I’m sick of that pandering rhetoric…
maybe you are being humorous with the wink and all, but really, if somebody doesn’t toe the line on whichever side you are on they get pushed around…what happened to healthy debate (frankly, you guys probably don’t deserve my little diatribe – I came over here from elsewhere and it was downright meanspirited)
I rarely toe the line and I have my own opinions which are not generated by the left right middle or daily atmospheric conditions or my monthly menstration (which, one hopes you don’t have to worry about)
It appears John has his own opinions as well and posts as “he likes”……it IS his site after all
Sim[p]son’s Fan? If I hear that Homer laugh one more time I’m going to have to do a resection of someones vocal cords.
ppGaz
Armstrong Williams is exactly right, up until the “pull out” part.
Pulling out equals immediate, unmitigated disaster.
Staying there and trying to get a decent outcome equals … well, the chance of something better.
Finding the national resolve to stay and get that done is going to be hard for exactly the reason Williams suggests: This administration has squandered the trust it had in its pocket 3 years ago. The only way to get it back is to cut the crap and start leveling with the people. I fear that this is not likely. Every gang of self-deceived potatoheads I’ve ever seen will just burrow deeper and deeper into their holes of self justification and other-blaming. When the going gets rough, the potatoheads dig in.
–/
Shrill? Nothing in the displayed material is at all shrill.
rafael
John, do you think that after they agree on a Constitution things will get better? Because a bunch of people were hoping the elections would have that result. Even I started thinking Bush might actually pull it through, but things have gone really bad since then.
I guess I don’t see what gives you hope that any good might come out of the whole deal. The place has gone worse each year, why would things change in the next few years?
TheocracyIsComing
The best result now is an Islamic Republic with close ties to Tehran. Tehran will soon have nukes and a client state with the 2nd largest oil supply in the world.
We have indirectly given China a huge leg up in the race for dwindling oil supplies.
And Bush and Cheney were supposed to be oilmen! Oh that’s right, old Dick almost bankrupted Halliburton with his disastrous Dresser acquisition and young George ran Arbusto and many other oil cats into the ground. No wonder they left the difficulties of competition and markets for taxpayer funded stadiums and the White House.
James Emerson
I disagree somewhat. Expect the oil rich Southern nine provinces to form a Shia confederate, and the oil rich Kurdish dominated four provinces to stay an independent Kurdistan. The Sunnis have no oil in any of their provinces, but are theologically similar to Saudi Arabia who will more than likely intercede on their behalf.
It looks like Iran is the big winner though, with that I agree with you.
We can guess who the big loser is going to be. I guess the question now is how to minimize the damage Bush has wrought to the Middle East and America, but the past is prelude, so don’t expect too much.
Geek, Esq.
The taboo question which no one in DC wants to touch, but which must be addressed:
Is the presence of US troops actually destabilizing Iraq?
ppGaz
Yes, and no. On the one hand, the insurgency currently is focussed on getting us out of there and removing our puppet government’s ability to maintain control.
On the other hand, without the US presence, you’d have essentially civil war.
It’s too late to take the wise advice of Colin Powell and leave the despot to stew in his own thieving juices. Hussein knew that an iron fist was required to keep his country under control. It’s a lesson we are now learning at our peril. We are the iron fist, or trying to be, but we cannot succeed at it without huge sacrifice, huge cost, and of course, huge stuckness. We’re stuck with the mess we’ve created. No easy way out. Pullout results in civil war, and then Iran gets involved. Pretty much everything likely to follow a pullout is going to be bad. Eventually more of our people get put in harm’s.
Bush has a real problem on his hands, and his neocon advisors have nothing to offer. His Pentagon has not much more to pony up. His country is growing very tired of the bullshit … the relentless manipulation and the reality-free bromides. WMDs, Mission Accomplished, Dead or Alive, Osama Who?, Bring it On, Last Throes …. not exactly a string of confidence builders.
Unless the potatoheads come up with some really good ideas, he, and we, are fucked.
There is only one card to play: The honesty card. Do they have the guts? I wish I could say yes.
demimondian
I dunno, John. I read the Williams piece, and I disagree with a lot he says.
He claims that the war is not with “Islamic fundamentalism” but with Islam itself. Gosh, he’d better not ask any of the members of the American Muslim community, who seems to be quite capable of dividing their lives the same way American Christians and American Jews (and Hindus and Followers of the Great Spaghetti Monster, too) seem to manage.
Then he suggests immediate withdrawal. I don’t think this war is a good idea, and I do think that the White House intentionally deceived us in the run up, but…sheesh. Now that we’re there, leaving with things the way they are would be the worst possible choice.
We need to set a collection of standards for stability, and stick to it, and draw down over time. We need to give Iraq a chance, and drawing down now doesn’t do that.
djc
ppGaz
The only reason you don’t find anything shrill in what Williams said is because you didn’t pay for it. And you’re shrill to start with.
Karl Rove must be pissed. You pay this idiot serious cash, you lay him off and you get treated like this?
Geek, Esq.
Freedom, Iraqis, it’s just a speech away
It’s just a speech away
It’s just a speech away
It’s just a speech away
It’s just a speech away, speech away, speech away . . .
John Cole
The whole thing was very over-the-top and factually questionable.
It was as if I had written it!
rilkefan
“Two a day” would be more accurate – see here. Feb 04 was the last time we achieved the quoted rate. Suckily, it’s over 3/day this month.
djc
Uh “Geek”,
Chanelling you grandmother’s record collection?
Peace.
Don’t trust trust anyone over 13.
CaseyL
I don’t know why we’re supposed to be surprised that, absent an iron-fisted dictator, Iraq has fallen apart along its sectarian seams.
We saw the same thing happen in Yugoslavia after Tito. We saw the same thing happen in the former Soviet republics, esp. the Central Asian ones. The same thing happened throughout Africa, when colonialism ended. Hell, before the Brits went in and cobbled together more artificially-polysectarian states, the same thing happened in the ME when the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
Maybe what makes Iraq unique is that the war planners ignored everything history told them, along with ignoring the advice and cautions from their own people in the Pentagon and State Department. Makes me wonder if they talked to, or listened to, anyone besides Achmed Chalabi.
“We need to set a collection of standards for stability, and stick to it, and draw down over time.”
OK, and what if those standards are never met? What kind of timeline do you suggest? And – assuming we can prop up some kind of “united Iraq,” which is a huge assumption to start with – what happens if, as soon as we leave, it falls apart?
Geek, Esq.
I suspect a lot of people under 40 have Let it Bleed in their collection. At least they should.
Once-ler
Do you really think the Sunnis are going to be satisfied with nothing but sand when there is oil to the north and to the south of them? I think not. I don’t disagree with you, but this is why civil war is inevitable. In fact, I think that’s what’s been going on there for at least a year now. It’s just that no one wants to admit it.
See above. I tried to break up a fight one time, it was a big mistake.
djc
So do I.
Hell, I even spent $1,300 on tickets to see the “sweet neocon” bashing rockers a couple of weeks from now.
I’ve seen them before, but I really think this is their last tour.
(Mick is a moonbat. I think Keith’s a Republican)
Steve
I don’t have much to say about Armstrong Williams, but I wanted to give a shout out to the great title of this post.
KC
I hate to say it, but I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s going to make a difference if we pull out now or pull out later. From what I read, things are a pretty big mess over there. It seems like people in the south want to do their thing, people in the north want to do theirs, and people in the middle want to rule the entire country. How do you fix this kind of problem? Papering over it isn’t going to work, at least I don’t think so. After all, we had a civil war after seventy years of papering over similar issues. It seems like they’re ready to have a civil war now. Unless a miracle happens, I don’t see how trouble can be avoided.
carot
To me O’Reilly summed up the attitude of the Bush administration to terrorism. He basically said it was unpatriotic to try to work out the motives of the terrorists, but had to only believe they were evil, wanting nothing for themselves but to hurt nice people.
The only problem with this is every colonialist power tries this excuse and unfortunately it never works in the long run. It merely acts as a blind to see if they can be defeated militarily instead of giving them enough of what they want for them to stop.
The English should know, they tried this excuse with every country they colonised to stave off negotiating or leaving, most recently with the Irish. The simple fact is terrorists nearly always win because as soon as the people are on their side they have protection and supplies. If you don’t believe this then point out some exceptions to the rule which give some hope to the Iraqi situation. There is no precedent in history to successfully beating these terrorists.
Nearly every terrorist war has ended either by the colonialist power being forced to the negotiating table (and giving up the cover story that the terrorists don’t want anything) or by being driven out in a rout. It has only been a matter of how much blood and treasure was spent before this occurred.
ape
my god. are these JC’s readers now?
not a Bushite amongst ’em. i almost feel like speaking up for the guy, & poor ‘ol “Invisible Submarines” Rumsfeld.
but then i think – they chose all this. can any war have been more unequivocally voluntary?
Vlad
“We saw the same thing happen in Yugoslavia after Tito. We saw the same thing happen in the former Soviet republics, esp. the Central Asian ones. The same thing happened throughout Africa, when colonialism ended. Hell, before the Brits went in and cobbled together more artificially-polysectarian states, the same thing happened in the ME when the Ottoman Empire collapsed.”
I know Debs is nearly obsolete in this day and age, but I think one of his quotes is a pretty good fit here: “I would not lead you out if I could; for if you could be led out, you could be led back again. I would have you make up your minds that there is nothing that you cannot do for yourselves.”
Sometimes, people just need to settle things themselves. True democracy is a mass movement, and you can’t control that from the outside without compromising the whole thing. Create the necessary conditions, by whatever means, and then get the hell out of the way.
Defense Guy
I am not sure this is as wise as it may seem. Iraq is surrounded on all sides (except Turkey) by despotic regimes looking to push their agendas. They are doing so with us there, so absence of a strong spokesperson for democratic ideals might have made the return to tyranny even more likely than it is now.
mac Buckets
Again with the “under control” nonsense. Yes, Iraq was a fairyland of peace and harmony before the evil US showed up, wasn’t it?
So the left again says they’d rather have a known enemy, who hates the US and supports acts of terror, in charge than to try something as crazy as majority rule in the middle of the Middle East. Why exactly can they not do what the US, Japan, Europe, Australia, etc., can do? Is it because their skin is too brown that they cannot act like civilized people? Are they not evolved enough from animals? Why is the iron fist necessary for Iraq, but not in, say, South Africa? You assert, but you do not prove, and I deny that notion out-of-hand as revolting, politically expedient, and borderline racist.
Anyone else see the irony in the left’s position that the US should only pursue violent war in Iraq as a very, very, very last resort, but that violent dictatorship in Iraq should always be considered the natural state of order? Insanity.
I remember when the left cared about human rights and freedom for the poor from their palace-building, crooked oppressors — you know, like when Clinton was president. When did they sell out their core principles — Florida 2000?
66% of Iraqis say they are hopeful for the future. 90% say things will get better slowly. 61% say their lives are better since the war. 58% think democracy is likely to succeed. Sunni terrorism is (IIRC) 9th on their overall list of concerns. 83% say it is unlikely there will be a civil war in Iraq.
But who needs to listen to Iraqis when we have American leftists who’ve never met an Iraqi to speak for their entire country! Arrogance is what it is.
So for the 10% of their population who support barbaric acts as legitimate resistance, the majority 80% should be left to rot in chains? This is what you are saying, and it’s disgusting on the face of it.
Vlad
Why exactly can they not do what the US, Japan, Europe, Australia, etc., can do?”
Because (with the exception of Japan) the democratic processes in those nations were organic outgrowths from within, rather than a system imposed by foreign fighters at the point of a bayonet.
Japan is different from the others, but Japan was also a nation with a homogeneous ethnic structure and easy-to-secure borders, whose authoritarian leader was immensely popular (and compliant during the formation of the new order).
When you impose democratic structures on a society accustomed to authoritarian rule, without letting them develop those structures themselves, all you get is another Weimar Republic. You poison the well for genuine democracy, and you pave the way for a new group of authoritarian abusers to take over.
Shygetz
So the left again says they’d rather have a known enemy, who hates the US and supports acts of terror, in charge than to try something as crazy as majority rule in the middle of the Middle East. Why exactly can they not do what the US, Japan, Europe, Australia, etc., can do? Is it because their skin is too brown that they cannot act like civilized people? Are they not evolved enough from animals? Why is the iron fist necessary for Iraq, but not in, say, South Africa? You assert, but you do not prove, and I deny that notion out-of-hand as revolting, politically expedient, and borderline racist.
I’m tired of war apologists touting out this “Fight for the brown peoples’ freedom!” argument. Look, no one asked the American people before we went there if we were willing to spend our blood and treasure to try to force democracy on Iraq. No one is suggesting we send our forces to sub-Saharan Africa to force democracy on them (not much oil there). It is a disingenuous argument (not surprising, considering that it was the third string argument after the WMDs and Al Qaeda connections arguments proved to be false).
Look, there is nothing genetic about the Iraqis’ unpreparedness for democracy–it is a question of cultural readiness. Until the average person is ready to risk their lives for freedom, then no one can give them their freedom for any lasting amount of time. As was pointed out previously, most countries with lasting democracies earned them with their own struggle. Where in that poll you quoted was it asked “Are you willing to die to establish a lasting democracy in Iraq?” Because, for a lasting democracy, that is the necessary question.
I do not think that the 80% of Iraqis’ should be forced to live in chains–they should take responsibility for their own freedom. Freedom isn’t free, and contrary to the beliefs of the current batch of neocons, it can’t be a gift either. Freedom must be earned, or else it is too easily lost.
mac Buckets
Nonsense. All we “imposed” was the ousting of Saddam. The Iraqi people have shown time and time again that they wanted freedom and democracy — it’s just that whenever they tried to rise up, all Saddam had to do was dig a new mass grave. 58% of qualified Iraqis braved death to show that they wanted freedom and democracy. Do you still doubt them, really?
mac Buckets
If that’s true, then explain the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton in 1998 (not to mention the unsupported rebellion debacle after the First Gulf War). In that Act, we made it our national policy to partner with Iraqi rebel groups to overthrow Saddam and set up a hand-picked Iraqi government.
It was a half-measure, of course, which led to the loss of Iraqi rebel lives at the point of Saddam’s guns, but it certainly shows that the US and Kurds and Shiites had a mutual interest in drawing together in cooperation to oust Saddam. They wanted our help, and we wanted to give it to them.
mac Buckets
How many Iraqi police applicant’s lines must be blown up, and how many times must the Iraqis be quoted as saying that no amount of terrorism will deter them from freedom, before tongue-clucking Americans who haven’t ever been within 3000 miles of Iraq admit that your conditions have already been satisfied?
Vlad
“…it’s just that whenever they tried to rise up, all Saddam had to do was dig a new mass grave.”
There’s a middle ground between going in unilaterally with both guns blazing and coldly abandoning prospective rebels to their fate. That middle ground is where we should’ve been standing.
“Do you still doubt them, really?”
I doubt that they want us their holding their hand, when opinion polls show the majority of them wanting us to leave.
mac Buckets
What-ilaterally? Again, it’s hard to take opinions seriously when virtually the first word of your post is either a blatant lie or proof that you aren’t smart enough to know what “unilateral” means. HINT: It doesn’t mean “without France.”
Our response was in the middle of those two options.
We were talking PRE-invasion, not present-day. Of course they want us to leave soon, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t want our help to overthrow Saddam. History and polls tell us quite the opposite.
ppGaz
Examine the history of Arabia in general. Why has there never been a stable liberal democracy in Arabia? What makes you think that this time, there will be? And if you wanted to find a more improbable place to have one, could you do much better than to pick Iraq?
The notion that it is possible, much less likely, that a liberal democracy can govern Iraq in the near future is based entirely on proof by assertion. There is no evidence whatever that this is true. None. Zero.
Yet on this proposition, America stakes its blood and treasure and drains its resources in the face of metastasizing worldwide terror. It paralyzes its own government, which at this time cannot even unite its own people, much less the people of a country with a stormy and violent history of tribal and religious conflict.
It’s a fool’s gamble.