Obama, Clinton and Edwards all spoke before ASFCME today — and one thing they all appeared to agree upon was that we’ll be staying in Iraq in some capacity for some time to come.
Somebody please explain to me why today, while polls punish the Democratic party for blank-checking Bush’s war, we don’t have a single Democratic candidate with the balls to say what Howard Dean said in 2004. Dean hardly got punished for his sentiments, except by the media, back when the war and our smirking war chief still had a majority following. And as it turns out practically everything that Howard Dean said about Iraq proved right on the money. The war is a hopeless crusade, run by rank nincompoops, that damages American interests every day that it goes on. These aren’t even debatable points anymore, just baseline assumptions that even the surgin’ Kagans recognized when they promoted their policy change.
Dean’s message resonated back when he sounded “crazy.” Now imagine the response when the 90% of America smarter than John Hinderaker more or less takes his position as a given. Americans hate the president and his crappy war. It doesn’t take “balls” to stand forcefully against sending more kids to die in Iraq, it takes balls not to. And yet when our Dem candidates look for inspiration in 2007, four years after Howard Dean’s grassroots phenomenon, every single one reaches for Joementum. Try to grasp how depressing that is.
Tim H.
It can’t be fear; they obviously want to remain in Iraq. If I had to guess why, I’d say they’re in synch with some big donors.
demimondian
We will be in the Kurdish areas of Iraq for an indeterminate period of time, if nowhere else.
Dave
The country has been desperately seeking leadership for a long time. This ain’t new.
Tim F.
That sounds like a good idea in theory. How would you keep them supplied? Through 700 miles of unpatrolled Iraqi chaos? I suppose Turkey would be glad to let our supply convoys through. Or maybe Iran. We could always ask Syria.
ThymeZone
I think you all mistook their opposition to Bush’s “Stay the course” as real opposition to our occupation of Iraq.
The truth is, nobody in government, Democrat or Republican, has a coherent plan that does not involve some form of continued occupation of Iraq.
To be totally clear on the point, nobody in this blog or any other blog has such a plan either, so that needs to be said to keep it all in perspective. Nobody is going to support a chaotic collapse of the country and an implosion of the region.
What Dems and Repubs are doing now is positioning themselves for the rhetoric of next summer. It’s a pure power game now, each side measuring its words against the words of the other side, and trying to predict how it all comes together next summer.
Taking the kind of position this thread presupposes is the one needed would paint the candidate into a corner, and none of them are going to take that risk.
Both sides are playing a game of chicken. The question is which side will the voters think is the biggest bunch of assholes in November of next year? And which of the two candidates next year will succeed in being the least awful choice?
Nobody is going to show leadership. This is reality tv now.
Get used to it.
Third Eye Open
Tim,
If you don’t think the “realist” camp has a firm grasp on the front runners this cycle, then you’re not looking hard enough. All of these candidates are hedging their bets with regards to the anti-war base of the democratic party. They are setting in place the excuse that, “Bush screwed it up, and now we have to be careful about how we deal with it”. This is how they plan on reaching out to the “center” of the electorate, even though the center is lurching more and more left every day with regards to iraq.
None of these boobs are doing anything to energize me, mainly because advocating what Dean has already been preaching for 3 years, is seen as a loser prospect in 2012 and beyond when the region continues to crumble, and there will be little pity to rehash history and explain how we got to where we are. Short attention spans and all.
tde
Oil.
I may be the only person in the world who initially thought our invasion of Iraq was wrong, but who no supports having troops there.
No, I don’t think we should be refereeing some civil war – we just need to establish bases sufficient to protect access to the oil fields and let the Iraqis sort out which nutty sect is going to run their government.
tde
should say”who now supports . . .”
Tim F.
Did you forget the historic worldwide protests that preceded the invasion? There were a hell of a lot of people like you out there.
Tim F.
reading your correction, I see what you mean. No, we can’t protect Iraq’s oil production unless we stabilize the country. We can’t stabilize the country. ergo…
Buck
How does the amount of oil coming out of Iraq now compare to the amount of oil coming out of Iraq before we invaded?
TZ is right. Nobody supports the chaotic collapse of the country. The collapse of the country must have a form and structure to it. On that Democrats and Republicans agree. And there are very few Republicans or Democrats or Independents that give a good god damn about the 4 American soldiers that die there daily.
There is really nothing to get used to. It is the way politics is and has always been and will always be.
Zifnab
Bottom line, if we pull out of Iraq, we lose. If we stay in Iraq, we just haven’t won yet. It’s like the guy at the poker table who says, “Someone spot me another $50 so I can stay in.” Except “Someone” is the American taxpayer and he, apparently, doesn’t have a choice in the matter.
You know, I take back what I said in the other thread. Al Gore is looking better and better. I’m willing to bet he’d have the brass ones to put his foot down and declare that we’re leaving as of January 20th, 2009.
Rome Again
Why does the US have the right or responsiblity to protect Iraqi oil? It’s not OUR oil, despite what some may say.
The fact that you see it that way says to me that you support a capitalist venture to be Robin Hood type oil thieves.
Question: Are we robbing the rich to give to the poor or vice-versa?
jenniebee
My vote goes to the first candidate who publicly describes either the Iraq war or the GWOT as a “jedi clusterfuck.”
’nuff said.
Rome Again
Yeah, well, apparently Republicans couldn’t hold their concern long enough to not poke that stick. You know why? Because they read in the Bible that anyone who went against Babylon would surely win. Silly that! Babylon isn’t in Iraq anymore, that city is fairly uninhabited. The culture of Babylon is what’s alive, and it’s right here in the good ol’ USA.
Not true. We’ve just got full plates. It’s not like 50,000 have been killed, it’s not Vietnam. The people who really don’t care only think that way because only about 3,500 have died. It’s just not big enough numbers to concern them.
RareSanity
Start campaigning for either Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul quickly and passionately then.
I’m on the Ron Paul bandwagon myself, all or nothing. Sure, he probably won’t win, but I refuse to vote for the “lesser of two evils” anymore. I’m either voting for Ron Paul or, if he doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll spend election day 2008 playing Madden 2009.
Wilfred
Stupid us. Maybe we need an official interpreter for the Dems from now on.
But why put things into such terms? If this assumption is true, then Bushco is right: we have to stay the course, no? But many Arabs and Arabists think otherwise, i.e. they maintain that it is the US presence that is in fact exacerbating the problem.
The implosion has already begun; we can’t undo what Bush has done. The Arabs have to sort out their world for themselves. That’s true now and will be 10 years from now. Every mistake that could have been made was made; it simply cannot be corrected.
demimondian
Actually, Turkey probably would be glad to allow our supply convoys through.
Yes, of course, Turkey is not the least bit interested in an independent Kurdistan; the government in Ankara has, however, even less interest in the Kurdish areas of the former Iraq becoming truly anarchic, and, if possible, even less interest than that in Syria and Iran partitioning northern Iraq. Confronted with either of those alternatives, they’d need to invade and occupy themselves.
Occupy northwestern Iraq, and *poof* no EU membership for you, Turkey.
Given that set of choice, Turkey will let supply convoys through.
Tom S
At this point Turkey’s proposed membership in the EU is dead in the water, no matter what we say. We’d have to do better than that.
ThymeZone
This kind of clarity will get you nowhere in politics.
Until you are able to be for something before you are against it, and be ready to take either position at the drop of a hat, you aren’t ready for prime time in this game.
While our troops dodge real ordnance, our politicians play paintball with each other.
Rome Again
B-b-but Paintball is FUN!
sglover
I think I’m heading toward that vicinity myself. Not necessarily Paul, but one of the minor candidates.
metalgrid
Really makes it look like their big money donors are pulling the strings and it’s the same list of donors for all of them. The American economy – staying afloat through war profiteering.
The Other Steve
I’m usually quite cynical, but I don’t think this has anything to do with big money donors.
I think they’re actually trying to be honest, and they’re saying they don’t really know what things are going to be like by 2009. When they say troops staying, they might mean along the Iraqi borders with Kuwait and Turkey and such for all we know.
I don’t care about the war, I just want Bush on trial in the Hague.
Dug Jay
As scary as it is for me to say it, I find myself in essential agreement with ThymeZone. Hotheads like Tim F. and Zifnab are obviously just that…hotheads, with limited ability to see or function beyond their child-like rantings.
Catfish N. Cod
I’m going to be terribly contrary and say that while we MUST– absolutely MUST– withdraw most of our troops, we should, for a while at least, keep a small number of troops in Iraq.
Why? Because while we have no business being the force stopping the Iraqi Civil War, we DO have al-Qaeda in Iraq. They’re there, they’re real, and they are the real enemy. You can’t go throw everything at al-Qaeda Headquarters on the Afghan/Pakistan border; we need to still be able to strike the few actual bad guys in Iraq.
Of course, if we are being serious, we also will work to oppose the al-Qaeda infiltrating the Lebanese refugee camps, the Gaza Strip, et cetera. It is time to undo the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld “repurposing” of the war and go back to fighting our ACTUAL ENEMIES.
I would rather we try the neocons ourselves than send them to the Hague — because it shows we know how we frakked up. I would encourage international observers if I believed they wouldn’t become tools of anti-American propaganda. Everyone needs to have it clear in their head that we have rejected what these clowns did.
We don’t have to redeploy to the Turkish border, “The Other Steve”, just to Kurdistan. The Kurds’ only problem is their Turkish border dispute, and it would actually mollify Turkey some if we sat there and ‘discouraged’ border incidents. We can ‘redeploy’ there and not be ‘withdrawn’ while still getting our men out of harm’s way (except when they need to attack al-Qaeda).
I wish we could deploy in force to wipe out the whole Iraq insurgency, but that would have required expanding the military starting on 9/12/2001, and Bush was too shortsighted to do that. Instead he tried to fight an unnecessary campaign with half the troops, and we all know the result of that.
Wilfred
Tim writes:
Our history is filled with such stands. This is Senator Ben Tillman speaking on the floor of the Senate in 1898, opposing US annexation of the Philippines, in the face of all the Kipling jingoists writing for the Hearst press, the Fox news of the day:
That’s speaking truth to power (and Tillman was no saint). Tim’s absolutely right: any politician, regardless of party, who doesn’t speak out against this Catastrophe is party to it.
Bruce Moomaw
ThymeZone: “Nobody is going to support a chaotic collapse of the country and an implosion of the region.”
Name somebody who can PREVENT it. Nothing short of a draft and a massive increase in total American miliaray spending could provide us with enough military clout to have even a faint chance of stabilizing Iraq now. At this point it would probably be impossible even with that — and if we do stabilize it that way, with brute military force, the rest of the Moslem world (they’re the ones with the Bomb, remember) will turn rabidly against us. We’re going to have our hands full just trying to prevent nuclear terrorism — our top military/strategic priority by an overwhelming margin. “Saving” Iraq doesn’t just come second; it comes about fiftieth.
ThymeZone
Point well taken, what I meant was, nobody will support any scheme that lets THEM be blamed for it.
Wilfred
TZ writes:
Of course, the Dems still smart from the “Who lost China” shrieking of the Luce crowd. They should point to the British pullout from India, where nothing could have prevented what happened in 1948. The Indians have never blamed the British for what they, the Indians, did.
But I digress. We all know what the real problem: Most Americans are stupid, overfed, pathetically a-historical, brain dead motherfuckers and all the hot air in the world isn’t going to change any of that.
Bruce Moomaw
Well, whoever moves into the White House next is going to be left holding that bag no matter what they say on the campaign trail (unless the curtain actually falls BEFORE Hopalong Casualty rides into the sunset). I’m quite wiling to believe, though, that there’s a element of pure polticial cyncism in the Dems’ current actions: they want to make sure that Bush’s entanglement in Iraq is still around to stink up the GOP by Nov. 2008.
As for Kurdistan: I still think we should make every strenuous effort possible to try to stay there, for several reasons. And skillful diplomacy with Turkey may allow us to succeed. However, since this administration’s diplomatic skills are such that I’m surprised they haven’t managed to get us into a war with Rhode Island, I can imagine what the odds of success are at this point.
mrmobi
I’d like to believe that we are doing a good job with regard to preventing suitcase nuke-bearing nutjobs from entering the country, but color me concerned. The record so far is that we couldn’t rescue people from a hurricane with a weeks’ notice, and the only terrorists we have been catching are of the, shall we say, marginal variety. I also believe that a better approach to the nuclear terrorist issue is to treat the problem as a police matter, to invest in covert human intelligence, etc, instead of building multi-billion dollar weapons systems to bomb tents in the desert.
I’m one of those crazy demislamunofascists who believe that the Iraq war is all about securing oil supplies, so it’s heartening to see that quite a few very conservative folks are coming out and saying what we all know, we have lost.
I read an interview (by Hugh Hewitt!) with Bill Odoms (Reagan’s National Security Chief) a while back, here is a short excerpt:
Watch closely as Afghanistan spins out of controls and Turkey gets more aggressive in defending its territory from the Iraqi Kurds. Ain’t we got fun?
As Obama said a while back, “There are no good solutions in Iraq.”
Tsulagi
Odom, in the mrmobi blockquote above, has it exactly right. At this point, whether we stay or go, the outcome will be the same. And has all the potential to get worse if we stay.
tballou
Bill Richardson wants us out and soon!
Northman
I believe Bill Richardson has also called for a complete withdrawal. Admittedly I have no idea where he stands poll-wise, but I’m betting he has a better chance than Kucinich.
Tulkinghorn
That is to say, we also need to think about preventing the NEXT frivolous Republican adventure. With Eliot Abrams in a policy-making role in this administration, after being convicted and pardoned one time already, simply congressional hearing and prosecutions may not be enough.
I like the ancient Athenian approach – when we vote for president, a majority vote alongside the presidential vote would be for banishing for life a major politician. This could have rid us of Bill Clinton, Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy and even Richard Nixon before he had any ability to cause serious harm. Let’s call the constitutional convention, and break out the ostracons!
sglover
I think that last is almost certainly true. That’s the REAL subtext of the recent Dem rollover on Iraq war funding. Very very clever.
But I have a strong suspicion that this cleverness is going to win them a poison chalice. Unpleasant events are certainly going to follow our withdrawal from Iraq, and whoever is in office at the time is going to take the blame. This is why Bush is so desperate to pass the disaster off to his successor. The Dems have effectively (I think) forfeited the essential chance to end the disaster while Bush is still in office. All the bullshit about how things are going to be different in September is a goddam sick joke. So assuming the Dems win — and they’d really have to fuck up, even by Dem standards — it will become their problem, and hence their blame.
So since they’ve foregone the chance to at least fight for the right thing in a convincing manner, preparing the citizenry for unpleasant future realities would be the next best thing for the Dems to do. But I see none of the front-runners doing that. They all sound like they want to continue some variant of Bush’s “dump it on the next sucker” strategy. In particular, like a lot of Dems, I had great hopes for Obama. But his call for about 100,000 more troops reeks of the worst kind of cynical “national security” pandering.
sglover
That interview was terrific, not only for Odom’s lucid descriptions of our sorry conditions, but also for the effortless way that he put the lickspittle Hewitt in his place.
jake
Had to be done.
Undeniable Liberal
Short answer to your question with a question: Why isn’t anybody listening to Dennis Kucinich?
It simply amazes me that the big boy blogs all have fallen into the meme that he is some kind of oddity that should be ignored. IMHO, of course.
Brian
Undeniable-the reason K is ignored is because he knows and plays his role very well-to persuade left wingers that they should not do what they should really do, which is bolt the Democratic Party. He is perfectly happy to play his role as a sap.
mrmobi
Yeah, SG, I read the whole thing and it comes across pretty clearly that Hewitt was sputtering right from the get-go.
Odom has a very clear and realistic understanding of our situation in Iraq and that puts him at odds with anyone who still believes in victory. I was a little surprised at the time that they didn’t come after him harder. I think they’re starting to get worn out by all the reality.
scarshapedstar
More Gore, plskthx.