Digby, in a long post on how voting against the ’91 Gulf War may have impacted votes by Democrats in 2002, writes the following:
I wrote the other day that Democrats’ political instincts proved to be wrong both times, which may actually be at the root of the problem. My answer to this is that in the case of war, perhaps Democratic politicians should just vote their consciences and defend their decision on that basis. Deal making and bet hedging has not paid off for us anyway. Maybe we should simply do what we think is right in these matters and let the chips fall where they may. It’s possible that had we done this in 91 we would have ended up exactly where we did — on the Killjoy side of the equation. It’s hard to argue with a glorious victory. But had we done it in 2002, we would have ended up with credibility.
A novel concept, that- voting for wars only when you actually believe in them, rather than resorting to political calculus. I might add that having voted in favor of a war, politicians should then be obligated to try to, you know, win them, rather than attempting to cash in on changing political climates.
Paddy O'Shea
Yes, politicians should try and win wars, especially those politicians who worked so hard to bring them about.
Otherwise you end up like George W. Bush, unpopular, roundly despised, and suspected of about just about every possible nasty thing the human imagination is capable of dreaming up.
Lines
Ok, just to repeat myself, again:
What will victory look like? Will future outbreaks of violence in Iraq be indicative of success or failure? How do you know when you’ve won a quagmire? How many elections does it take to “win”? How many purple fingers have to be blown off by insurgant explosives before its a “win”?
I thought removing Saddam was for the win? Is there some specific time when a faux-democracy becomes a real one?
Pb
Except that, you know, there was never actually a vote for war in 2002. I wish there had been, actually, it’d be nice to have Congress keep that power for once–but I fear those days are long past.
Mike S
From a post last year by Kevin Drum.
Winnng the war was less of a priority to Bush than using the war against Democrats. And if you want to argue about trying to win the war ask yourself why they didn’t use the troops in sufficient numbers to win the peace,as a now retired General was scoffed at for suggesting.
Mike S
Sorry, link.
aop
If, years down the road, transparent elections are a regular occurence.
If the people elected in those elections aren’t crazy Islamists.
If Iraq is capable of defending itself against terrorists, along with defending its borders against Syria and Iran.
If America only has to maintain a minimal military presence there.
If civil war doesn’t occur.
That will be “victory.” A lot of “ifs” admittedly…
Steve S
I remember the 1991 war. What’s interesting is I remember how hard Bush the Greater had to work to get Japan to chip in some cash.
I think as far as Japan was concerned, they didn’t care. They’d buy Kuwaiti oil from Iraq if that’s who now controlled it.
It’s honestly not clear to me that the 1991 war was good or bad. It just happened.
Only a Republican would think war is always good.
p.lukasiak
First off, why are we assuming that Democrats made a mistake in 1991? We all know the “April Glaspie” story, but it wasn’t until very recently that I found out that Saddam agreed to leave Kuwait — but then Bush I decided to add a condition that was not found in the relevant UN resolution—Iraq had to leave all of its weapons behind in Kuwait.
We simply don’t know what would have happened if we’d allowed Saddam to withdraw peacefully from Kuwait. It could have been disasterous, or it could have turned out quite nicely. What we do know is that thanks to the ’91 war (and what happened subsequent to it) 9-11 happened, and we’re stuck in Iraq right now with no way out.
If we had let Saddam withdraw, and maybe thrown him a bone to save face (e.g. holding talks mediated by the White House to resolve questions related to theft of Iraqi oil by Kuwait), things could have turned out quite nicely. Sure, Saddam might have had the bomb by now — but he would also have known that the world wasn’t about to put up with any agression on his part.
Steve S
aop
If that is our criteria…
Then the United States is a failure. Considering:
– We have crazy fundamentalists elected.
– We can’t keep people from coming across our borders
– We had a civil war
How about we just hope for two of them?
Steve
This isn’t what we were sold. We were sold a war to take out Saddam, to eliminate his WMDs, to ensure he wasn’t able to give his WMDs to terrorists that might attack us. We were not sold a nation-building exercise that would last for as long as it takes. Somewhere along the line we took over a country with an awful lot of internal problems and decided we would make those problems our own, in order to save some face from the exercise.
A lot of people who supported the war in the first instance are dead-set against it now. I count myself as one of them. Why should the politicians I elected remain dead-set on staying in Iraq as long as it takes, when it’s not what I want, and not what most of their constituents want?
Lines
So we won’t actually know if we’ve “won” until all of the people that voted for the war are in their graves? Well, I guess that will make it harder for people like John to critique the newer batch of Democrats for voting for the war.
M.A.
Yeah, one thing about the accusation that Democrats are just “playing politics” is that in many if not most cases, they are moving in the direction that their constituents strongly prefer. That’s the good kind of “Playing politics”: being responsive to the democratic will of the people you represent. Cheney should try it sometime.
ppGaz
Without a doubt, the biggest crock I have ever seen you post.
In fact I can’t even believe you posted it. These guys get us into a giant bag of shit, and it’s the opposition’s duty to help them make a success of it after they have totally fucked it up?
This is your answer to my question of several months ago … how do the spuds, having lost the confidence of the people, now get the support they need to do the right thing? By BLAMING THE FUCKING OPPOSITION?
Christ, man, that is too stupid even for a “right wing” blog. I don’t know what blog category that belongs in.
I ask again for the millionth time: When do these incompetant sons of bitches ever start taking responsibility for anything?
Lines
can you go back to channelling DougJ again, ppG?
I understand your frustration, but I’m not ready for the retaliatory JC strikes against all commenters.
neil
When the whole war is premised on political calculus, how can you not play?
ppGaz
Fuck it, man. When do these sonsabitches ever start taking responsbility for anything? It’s bad enough watching these mealy-mouthed liars weasel out of everything and try to blame everybody in the world for their shortcomings except themselves. Then we have to go to the blogs and watch bloggers carrying their goddam water?
“Frustration” does not describe it. At all. Let him frigging ban me, I don’t care. It won’t change the truth about this situation one damned bit.
p.lukasiak
ppGaz…
you don’t understand.
Democrats who voted against the war were unpatriotic because they didn’t support the war on terrorism.
And its the fault of every democrat who voted for the resolution that we’re in this mess right now….nevermind the fact that GOP support was all but unanimous–its the Democrats fault.
p.lukasiak
can you go back to channelling DougJ again, ppG?
actually, we do need him to do this, because DougJ is now hanging out at Tom Maguire’s “Just One Minute” site….
the only problem is that as ridiculous as DougJ tries to be with his faux-wingnut posts, the real wingnuts make him look reasonable….
Steve
Scheduling the vote on the war less than one month before the 2002 election was the rawest form of politics imaginable. And now the Democrats are being criticized for playing politics with war? Unbelievable how people think the shit on their own side doesn’t stink.
Lines
ppGaz: You arn’t going to change John’s mind by yelling explicatives at him. He’s one of the most reasonable of the Conservative Bush Pioneers I’ve found on the net. I think with time and patience, John will figure out that we’ve all been lied to on a consistent basis by the Bush Administration and will eventually stop attacking Democrats for being the representatives they were hired to be.
Just make fun of him, its more satisfying for all of us, and its bound to get more moderates to come to the site and listen to everything that gets discussed.
a guy called larry
That’s in the eye of the beholder. Republicans are for smaller government, fiscal responsiblity, fewer lashes “on the backs” of the populace, against nation building… with the liberal media criticizing these ideals.
Credibility?
aop
1) I was talking about Iraqis electing a full-blown Islamist Sharian theocracy after we leave–that would be the worst kind of irony. We do have (more than) our share of crazies, but every other Kos diary aside, the US is not a theocracy.
2) Our borders are porous, but Mexico and Canada are hardly comparable to Syria and Iran.
3) Our civil war was not the result of another country invading us, putting a government we weren’t happy with in place, and then leaving.
Your post was clever, but surely you can see the differences.
Which two?
Paddy O'Shea
The reason Bush has become so unpopular and disrespected is because he did not win his war. Remember, we went into this thing with reassurances that victory would not only be quick and neat, but also that we would be greeted by a grateful Iraqi populace who would litter the streets with rose petals for the marching pleasure of our troops.
Now it is 3 years later, Bush has not won his war, and the populace is growing more disgruntled by the day. Is anybody really surprised at this?
Rule #1 for War Presidents: If you take the country to war, and if lots of people die and you empty the national treasury getting it on, and then you don’t win in a reasonable amount of time, people will grow to dislike you. Nobody likes a war loser, especially when you get a couple thousand Americans killed in the process.
a guy called larry
As for politics, when I saw this, I thought that
it would be lower-level guys doing it, not a lot different than the status quo. Then the next Friday it’s the President. So here he is, campaign-style, evidently against the congressional Dems, his last opponent, and everyone who thinks he’s an asshole. It’s going to be a long three years, unless something happens to make him look good, heaven forbid. Governing is officially dead; campaigning is all that’s needed to move the country along.
es
What does it mean to try to win the war? Is Dianne Feinstein (I assume one of JC’s villains considering her change of heart) supposed to put on body armor, hop in a tank and start killing Iraqis? What is JC talking about exactly when he says “try to win the war?”
Kimmitt
All of this “blame the guys who planned, executed, and botched the thing” finger-pointing leaves out the vital fact that Michael Moore is fat. FAT FAT FAT FATTY FAT FAT.
Andrei
You would have best been advised to simply end the thought at the first sentence, which is a very strong position that is very difficult to argue against. That second sentence is nothing more than a distraction given that in a time of war, its everyone’s job to win it. Through taxes, through changing behaviors, through volunteering for armed service, through so many means that a country does when they fight for their lives like one does in war time.
But we are not a country at war. We are a country claiming we at dire risk and must engage in proactive action to end the threat against us while in fact we have done nothing to act like we are at war in our day to day lives. Here I am at work, and have been since 9/11, doing what I do all the time.
War? What war? I’m living my life the same way I was ten years ago. There’s no war going on. Give me a break.
If you want to lay a shot across the bow at the politicians to actually fight the war they voted for, maybe you should take a look in the mirror or confront everyone you know in person and ask them what they are doing to fight and win the war. (And yes I know you fought in Gulf War I, but what have you done for me lately?) That would be a more appropriate use of this intent behind this snark.
IMHO of course, but we both know you think I’m just an idiot.
KC
You know, I have a feeling we’ll resolve the whole WMD-war dispute right here, at Balloon-juice.
Paddy O'Shea
By the way, ladies, Raw Story is reporting that Woodward’s source for his Plame info was Bush’s Nat’l Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley. If this turns out to be true, it is pretty much all over for this clown show of an administration.
Think of it, Woodward might have just taken down his second corrupt Republican administration.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see, eh?
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Advisor_Was_Woodwards_Source_1116.html
Otto Man
Tell me about it. And did you know Ted Kennedy is a drunk?
Suck on THAT, lie-berals!
GTinMN
Er, well, that would require that they stop lying for a minute or two. Plus, admitting to some horrendous mistakes. But after all, since it would mean that they start acting like adults, it will never happen.
Pb
Is Rush Limbaugh fat? How about Sean Hannity? Just stocky? Inquiring minds no doubt want to know…
Jon H
John writes: “I might add that having voted in favor of a war, politicians should then be obligated to try to, you know, win them, rather than attempting to cash in on changing political climates.”
I believe the onus of winning falls primarily (about 99.99%) on the President and his people.
Congress doesn’t win wars, but they do have the power to euthanize a war which was stillborn thanks to executive incompetence or malfeasance.
And thank god for that, too. The last thing this country needs is Cheney and Rummy being handed a $10 trillion credit line to pay for poorly-planned wars designed by the morons at AEI.
Jon H
es says: “What is JC talking about exactly when he says “try to win the war?””
He seems to mean “dance with the pinheads what brung ya”.
ppGaz
Changing his — or anyone else’s — mind is not my goal.
That’s a fool’s errand. I’ve seen and written more Internet articles than probably all of you put together, or least enough to put me in the 99th percentile … and I have never seen anybody change anybody else’s mind yet.
That’s 250k articles and 10 years later. Seriously. Changing minds is never on the table. I love to argue with somebody who is out to change minds. It’s as easy as persuading a cat to eat tuna fish.
Paddy O'Shea
I believe Widdle Bush’s title is CIC (Commander In Chief), which makes his responsibility for things military pretty much undeniable.
Unless, of course, he got some kind of a legacy deal and the title has been changed to CICEWIMMLB. Which I believe stands for Commander In Chief Except When It Makes Me Look Bad.
But you just never know with royalty.
Sine.Qua.Non
How about just admitting they were wrong or didn’t have all the information they needed and they truly believe that is the case? What if the stance isn’t political, but merely a byproduct.
Sine.Qua.Non
By the way, I thought we declared victory a few months into the war?
ppGaz
We were doing a heck of a job.
Krista
Wow. Too bad that they don’t actually follow through with any of these things, huh? If they did, they’d be great!
ppGaz
Is that the sound of Burl Ives singing “Big rock candy mountain?”
Davebo
Lines
I’d agree. On every subject except this one.
a guy called larry
LOL I haven’t heard that in a really looooong time.
a guy called larry
You mean more than saying them? Geesh, that’s pretty optimistic, innit?
Shygetz
Quit changing the subject. We were talking about how Michael Moore is fat. Why do you Commie fascist liberals always want to deflect attention away from how Moore’s gluttony is helping Al Qaeda kill womb babies?
Blue Neponset
Digby is wrong. The Dems voted in good conscience based on the incorrect intelligence given to them by the Bush administration. They were told, as I was, that the smoking gun would be a ‘mushroom cloud’ and unmaned drones filled with biological and chemical weapons would be launched from ships 500 miles off our coasts if we didn’t get rid of Saddam. I was all for invading Iraq after I heard those statements. The problem is those statements were incorrect and thousands of people died because they were incorrect. Bush has never taken responsibility for his costly errors, and now he is blaming the Dems for believing his cherry picked intelligence in the first place.
I think Republicans are making a huge mistake if they think we are all on the same side in this matter. You can only question my patriotism so many times before I stop thinking we are playing for the same team. I want to win in Iraq and the best way to do that, IMO, is to weaken Bush so he can’t conduct this war with impunity. I am sorry it has come to this, but there is no point in trying to co-operate with the Republicans anymore. If weakening Bush and the Repubs in Congress by bringing up their collosal failures in 2002/2003 gets them to change their crappy policies in Iraq then I say so be it.
If Bush were actually a half way decent leader he wouldn’t have pushed the Democrats into a corner like this. He is reaping what he has sown.