The calls for timelines for withdrawal from Iraq, as well as the drop in public support for the mission forces us to reassess the implications of leaving Iraq in the lurch prior to defeating the insurgency. In yesterday’s post “US public opinion and Iraq”, Dan Darling touches on some of the issue of the real costs of abandoning Iraq to al Qaeda and the Baathist insurgents.
If Iraq fails, it won't be bad for the right or the left, it'll be bad for everyone. You want to see al-Qaeda recruiting skyrocket, you wait till bin Laden and Zarqawi get to boast that they sent the US home with a bloody nose and (rightly) claim that we won't have the fortitude to intervene to stop them anywhere else, which means they get free rein of the region. Moreover, a US defeat in Iraq will essentially end the Arab reform/democratization process. With no US encouragement to democratize and al-Qaeda coming to call, every despot in the region will clamp down and prepare for a fight. I know I would if I were Mubarak, Mohammed, Abdullah, Saleh, or any of the other rulers of the region.
Last summer, in response to John Kerry’s stated goal to set a timeline for withdrawal during his first term as president, I outlined the consequences this reckless policy in a post titled Abandoning Iraq:
- Losing a Front. Iraq is a crucial front in the War on Terror. Al Qaeda is active in Iraq, via its affiliates Ansar al Islam and Tawhid and Dawa. Their goal is to drive us out of the region and prevent the establishment of democracy, which they view as a mortal threat to their attempts to establish the new Islamic Caliphate and impose Sharia law.
- Al Qaeda Wins. Al Qaeda attacked us because they believed we were weak did not have the will to fight. Withdrawing from Iraq would prove this point and provide a boon to their recruiting. Osama bin Laden himself stated this in an interview in 1998, reacting to American attacks on his camps in Afghanistan.
Whether they try or not, we have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier.[:]
The raid has also proven that the American army is going down hill in its morale. Its members are too cowardly and too fearful to meet the young people of Islam face to face.
- Geography. Our political and military strategic advantage in Iraq would be lost. We would no longer have troops stationed next door to Iran and Syria, the two top terror-sponsoring nations. Iraq is an ideal location to base American troops in the region, and would also potentially provides an excellent location to base missile defense systems if Iran goes nuclear.
- In the Lurch. Regional allies (Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE) as well as global allies took great risks to back us in the invasion of Iraq. Our credibility worldwide would be shattered. Few, if any, nations would be willing to back us in the future for fear of America's lack of resolve. Invading Iraq requires a commitment to see it through. Without American protection and commitment, our allies in the Middle East would be exposed to the wrath of anti American forces.
- Death of Democracy. Any hopes of establishing democracy and changing the culture of oppression in the Middle East would be lost. The culture of oppression is a real root cause of terrorism, and abandoning Iraq will kill any chance of change in the region. Governments of the Middle East would crack down further on any dissident groups to consolidate their power and prevent the rise of radical Islam.
- Spiral of Violence. The Iraqi people would be consigned to a life of violence and despair, their hopes for freedom would be lost. The proper analogy would be the American abandonment of Vietnam. In the aftermath millions of South Vietnamese were murdered, imprisoned, placed in forced reeducation camps or died in makeshift boats attempting to flee the Communist North (incidentally, John Kerry estimated a Communist takeover of the South would adversely impact no more than 5,000 South Vietnamese). The violence also spread to Cambodia, where millions were murdered by the Khmer Rouge.
- The Balkanization of Iraq. Iraq would likely split into three separate regions, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. These regions would fall prey to the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, and Turks as each has political, economic and military interests in the respective regions.
- Intelligence. We are building Iraq's security and intelligence services. These organizations will provide the eyes and ears in the heart of the Middle East, with vital assets we could not dream of replicating (Arab agents, language, etc.) Losing this potential asset would be a blow to our intelligence gathering capabilities.
- Regional Giant. Iran would become the regional powerhouse and encouraged to go nuclear. Armed with nuclear weapons, it would threaten a majority of the world's known oil reserves. Nations would scramble to build or purchase nuclear weapons to defend themselves, as America cannot be depended upon to provide for their defense any longer.
An American withdrawal from Iraq would shatter our support in the region. We would no longer maintain a significant presence in the region and would be unable to prevent the rise of a nuclear Iran or other such threats. We would be unable to effectively act preemptively in the region or maintain significant intelligence capabilities. America would be forced to rely on punitive expeditions to respond to any attacks on American soil, but we would have inadequate means to do so due to lack of resources on the ground. Our inability to effectively respond (and history demonstrates that air and cruise missile strikes alone are not effective) may force us to use more lethal means to respond to terrorist attacks.
These are points the antiwar crowd refuses to understand, or buries under the mantle of partisan politics. As Dan clearly states, “If Iraq fails, it won't be bad for the right or the left, it'll be bad for everyone.” And “everyone” isn’t just the American public.
Many of us who support the current war do so for humanitarian reasons. America’s response to direct attacks on the heart of its political and economic spheres has been quite tame by historical standards. A political defeat in the conventional battle of Iraq increases the likelihood of the war getting far uglier, and much more deadly. America’s true power has yet to be tapped, and as the body count piles up in the states after al Qaeda becomes emboldened by the weakness of the "paper tiger", the American public's prohibitions against a full military call up and punitive invasion of the Middle East, or the use of nuclear weapons, will recede. Then "everyone" will pay.
Please send this to every member of Congress who has supported a withdrawel schedule.
During the 2004 campaign, Kerry supporters claimed they supported the war against al Qaeda, but since al Qaeda in Iraq has become our main enemy they are ready to do the Mogudishu boogy. It would be an invitation to more terrorist attacks.
How about some leadership and sacrifice? Dont blame the Dems for Bush's war. Get Jena to enlist, call for sacrifices, place a war tax on gas, go to a soldier's funeral, do something. But instead we get a new Gitmo addition provided by Halliburton, Medals for morons, etc. Bush has failed and laughs it off, what do you expect of the public?
Max (#2):
And if she doesn't want to? The military is ALL-voluntary. That includes members of the National Guard and Reserves, as well as Active Duty. No one is drafted into any of those services.
I hope you ask the family first. I'm sure a more lasting, meaningful gesture would be to donate your frequent flyer miles to to a service member overseas, or donate an air conditioner to our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have to agree this is one of the Bush administration's failings. Our government seems very reluctant to inconvenience the public. Look at all the whining about the TSA. It should be painful to travel at an airport. People should get upset -- at the terrorists and the states that sponsor them. Instead, people "blame Bush".
We should have War Bonds, like there were in WWII.
Okay, this is where your tinfoil hat comes out. How about: "But instead we get members of Congress comparing our military to the Nazis, calling for a pullout of Iraq, and emboldening the Islamofascists by proving what they already know -- our society is weak, corrupt, immoral, and doesn't have the stomache to win."
Disagree? I thought so.
Iraq is a crucial front in the War on Terror because the US made it a crucial front. There would be no Terror in Iraq if the US wouldn't have invaded it.
It was quiet obvious from the start of the war that the Iraqi's wouldn't support the American occupation, see for example Basra where the people didn't rebel against the Baath even after lot of effert. This "miscalculation" (you have to be really dumb or uninterested in Iraq to make this error) is what leads to this situation in which America is f*ck whatever it does. At this point of time the best solution is to simply leave (and leave fast like in two weeks). Hoping that it will get better in a year is foolish and the US hasn't enough army to stay longer.
Al Qaeda Wins
The Arabs win. Al Qaeda is only a small and relatively unimportant part of the Arab political spectrum. Would be like saying that the communists won because the French resistance won against Nazi Germany. The communists formed the better organised, less criminal element of the resistance and was after the war more powerfull than they would otherwise have been but they were still not powerfull enough to catch the country.
Geography
Not exactly a pure goal. Besides if Iran goes nuclear than that missile defense will not operate.
In the Lurch
So undemocratic states have to behave more democratic, and that is bad?
Death of Democracy
The US is just as pro democratic in the Middle East as the USSR was for the workers in Eastern Europe.
Spiral of Violence
If i were an American i would hope that Iraq would end in civil war because otherwise this could end very nasty. It is not like the US is an important country for Iraq.
The Balkanization of Iraq
This is what America wants to see happening.
Intelligence
Intelligence on terrorists who wouldn't be terrorists otherwise.
Regional Giant
The Arab oil countries don't want nukes because of Iran. I could name two other countries why they want nukes though
I am inching closer and closer to the reluctant conclusion that the Middle East might need to go through hell before it can get to heaven (or the quasi-heaven offered by the democracy/free market combo).
Many terrible things might happen if the U.S. leaves "early," BUT...
--Some of them might not happen (Al Qaida might find more indigenous resistance than it expects, particularly with everybody's favorite scapegoat no longer around)
--Even if they do happen, they might not be worse than the perpetuation of the status-quo, wherein pro-democracy America fights anti-American terrorists while 90% percent of the population sits around hating both sides, but unable to figure out what to do about it, and just gets more and more frustrated.)
--Democracy means taking responsibility for your own life. Sooner or later, those Iraqis who claim to want democracy are going to have to put their money where their mouth is.
These are points the antiwar crowd refuses to understand
I'm not sure of this. It certainly appears to me that there is a component of the left that is interested in reducing US power to "level the playing field" of the world.
Most of the anti-war crowd is probably just anti-Bush, but I suspect they are following the lead of those above on this topic.
Very good posting. Iraq is as good a place as any to begin the penetration of the heartland of arab fanaticism. If Iraq can join the modern world it is possible the rest of the arab world can reform.
Leftist atholes would like to see the US run away and show weakness to the stone age bringers. All the more reason to smoke their ath.
If you don't like a timeline for withdrawl, how about a timeline for victory? Ever since their first timeline, less than six months, has become inoperative, Bush et al. have refused to set any definite goal for any sort of victory that would allow a subsequent withdrawal.
Absent that, how long will the persistence of the current non-victory be helpful in acomplishing our goals in Iraq? Is there a point at which the US forces there are no longer bringing us closer to those goals? When might we know if we've reached it?
Retief, besides that the factual underpinning of your comment is false, renaming a withdrawal timeline doesn't change its character.
Bad pun, but I think that Bush is between Iraq and a hard place...
1) I believe that part of the permanent U.S. strategy for the region involves securing permanent basing rights for U.S. forces in Iraq, similar to post-WWII Germany and Japan, and post-Korean War South Korea. (I recall an old Den Beste post where he stated that the U.S. would likely move 1st Infantry and 1st Armored, as well as their supporting USAF Wing, to Iraq and out of Germany permanently.) (I think this is a good idea, but that's another topic...)
2) For delicate poltical reasons, he cannot now broach this topic with the Iraqi Government now, not until the Constitution is written and the first government under that Constitution takes office.
3) Hence, the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: Keep mum on the final plans to keep the Iraqi gov't and people focused on putting the finishing touches on their democracy and lose American public support, or announce future troop deployment plans, possibly regaining American popular support but throwing a major monkeywrench into the Iraq situtation.
It's like riding a bear and holding on by the ears: yes, it pisses the bear off to be grabbing his ears, but if you let go and get off the bear will eat you.
The real question is does the administration understand or is this one of the niggardly details they so conviently forgot. this from E J Dionne's column jun 21 2005 in the NYT
It is the transcript of "Meet the Press" from March 16, 2003, in which Vice President Cheney gave voice to the administration's optimistic assumptions that have now been laid low by reality.
Host Tim Russert asked whether "we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability." Cheney replied: "I disagree." He wouldn't say how many troops were needed, but he added that "to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."
Russert asked: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Cheney would have none of it. "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"
Cheney: "They have so far." And the vice president concluded: "I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."
And there was more foolishness from Wolfowitz down.
However yesterday in Cairo Sec of State Rice gave the most cogent statement to date(from todays NYT):
"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," Ms. Rice declared at the American University in Cairo. "Now we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people."
This ladies and gentleman is what it is all about. And it is going to take a LONG TIME to implement(it isn't simply about elections or this blog would be cheering Iran). At some point the President has to sit down with the public and give the speech saying this is the case. Hell he can let Sec Rice do it, but it needs to be made. The President also needs to bring in some Democrats into the input phase of the GWOT. I know you can't dig up Scoop Jackson from the grave but a good start will be Sen Lieberman from Conn and someone else.
Otherwise every blog, editorial column et al is going to continue to be echoing itself for its point of view and we are going to lose.
We need not worry about a change of course in Iraq until January 2009. The real debate about how to change it will not really get underway till late 2007. The decision will be made by the American people in November 2008.
--Democracy means taking responsibility for your own life. Sooner or later, those Iraqis who claim to want democracy are going to have to put their money where their mouth is.
That is called shooting at Americans.
"a", that is another completely baseless statement - and is in fact the exact opposite of reality. Those who are "shooting at Americans" oppose elections.
Could you write anything less related to reality? The motivation you have for writing such irrational statements is becoming obvious.
Elections are not the same as democracy.
You need to have power to have a democracy
Robert, your entire post is based on a false reality, invented, then commented opon.
Which of course is the agenda of the left.
Dr Sanity
Further, in That Way Lies Madness
But they dont need to use the words for other to see their utter total bankruptcy.
Which of course places their history of crimes against humanity in context.
Moral Defectives, twisted, and evil, pointing the accusing finger about everything they are guilty of, and pointing it at those better than they are.
They are also in abject fear of our success, because it will discredit them
But they stand on a mountian of skulls and what effect does it have ? it will have no more affect on them than their "brutal afgan winter" and all the other in the list of forgotten grasps at hope for failure.
Dr Sanity makes the case they are in a form of group mass histeria akin to the witch hunt and burner manias .. I agree.
In 10 years when the only news from Iraq are finds related to mans earliest civilisation, few will remember the lefts years of flailing about, but they will still be around looking for a new way to manifest their self loathing.
Well, that if they dont depict themselves so evil and repuslive that amercans forget about tolerance and adopt the Pinnocet solution for them.
Blind the left are to the fact that one of the things they are undermining, is the very values that allows such loathsome creatures to be allowed to live among us.
Robin ... perfect nuronic inverter is he.
What I find more interesting is the more widespread invented premis that they then decorate with "reasons" for the false primis.
I see quite a few doing that....
Perhaps the "reality based community" is having some problems.
In the past, we didnt have so much feedback from our troops themselves, and frankly their view firsthand hold lots more weight with me than the left requoting the recycled fever swamp of wishfull thinking.
What makes me angry is the false hope they are providing for the enemy, that will perlong the conflict, and extend the time before they can come home,
John Kerry extended the stay of our POWs 2 years so that more could die of torture, so that the crimes against humanity regime they loved would hold out.
These ingrate scumbags are attempting to do the same thing.
Anecdotally, I would say the majority of Americans have no problem with going into Afghanistan and committing troops, time, and money there for however long until OBL is caught and his organization crumbles. Nobody (except some in the chattering classes) is protesting or bitching about this war.
Invading Iraq seems to be less than tangential to accomplishing this goal and almost arbitrary to many however. Protest/aversion to the war do not only stem from leftist radicals, but they have capitalized on some of the discontent and attempt to appear mainstream a la Monsieur Mike Moore (but most people ignore them when they start trying to tie-in American "tyranny" across the world, anti-globlalism, free mumia, slavery reparations, etc..).
BTW, most hawks believe Clinton gutted and killed the readiness of the military yet Bush was only in office for less than a year when troops where deployed to Afghanistan: No one would argue that this operation has been quite a success even though the main objective hasn't been reached.
One rumor/consipiracy theory states that Bush was already planning the war during or prior to the Afghan actions. So he had many divsions and numbers already committed to Iraq. Rumsfeld was once asked (much prior to the Iraq invansion) why there weren't more troops in Afghanistan he answered saying something of the sort: If you criticize these plans you're criticizing the plans of the CINC of CENTCOM GEN Franks (who at the time who was widely popular due to the rallying around the flag effect). This could be his way of deflecting the answer. Is this only cynicism or is the admistration not above such things? Who knows, the point is moot.
. Enough rambling...
Belief has nothing to do with it, compare with the force we put in theater Gulf War I, and im not talking about the other that joined US, we was 98% of the force in theater.
Slam dunk.
We had the ability to fight TWO. 2 major engagements like that at the same time, we cannot do it now, and the one we can is smaller, notice ?
Even our navy airforce had suffered with pilot loss do to his cultural marxist crap, drumming them out with his feminista clintonista crap.
When Rumsfeld said we fight with the army we have, what do you think he meant ?
"We had the ability to fight TWO. 2 major engagements like that at the same time, we cannot do it now, and the one we can is smaller, notice?...When Rumsfeld said we fight with the army we have, what do you think he meant ?"
I don't think you can blame this on Clinton NOW considering he has been out of office for almost 5 years...and recruitment isn't a strong point of the military anyway.
All these stirring ideological arguments are fine, but, in the end, it's money and "boots on the ground" that will win this war. Unfortunately, all I hear from the conservative wing is calls for someone else to bear the burden of blood and of treasure. If this war is so important, why aren't Republicans volunteering? Why are they not urging their sons and daughters to step up to the plate and serve their nation's vital interests? Leadership is by example, and so far, all I see from Bush on down is calls for someone else to do his or her duty. We still have our tax cuts and the GOP wants to make the lower and middle classes and our children and grandchildren pay for this war by cuts in social services and running up the debt.
If you people are serious about the importance of this war, then it is time for you to lead by example. Clearly your actions say you do not really support the stated aims, otherwise you would be willing to step up and serve. It's time to volunteer, or ask your children to volunteer. If our national interests are at stake, then it is important that all Americans do their duty, and those who feel strongly about the importance of it need to lead by example. Let's hear calls for tax increases to pay for this war. Surely if it's as important as Bill Roggio says, he and all the well-off should be willing to pay for it rather than shift the burden to those least able to pay.
By the way, my family has always been willing to serve this nation. My grandfather was a doughboy in WW I. My father served in WW II and Korea, earning a Bronze Star for valor. I, myself, served during the Vietnam War (1970-1972) even though I opposed the war and could have gotten out of my service obligation. Finally, my son in law is serving his second tour with the 3rd ID in Baghdad while my granddaughter grows up without her father. Where are your children? What are you doing for this war that is so terribly important to win?
If you people are serious about the importance of this war, then it is time for you to lead by example. Clearly your actions say you do not really support the stated aims, otherwise you would be willing to step up and serve.
This is nothing but a cheap rhetorical ploy to stiffle debate.
If this war is so important, why aren't Republicans volunteering?
I'm pretty sure Republicans have volunteered for the war on terrorism. I sincerely doubt the influx of recruits after 9/11 came from the left side of the spectrum.
By the way, thank you for your service and that of your son-in-law.
Bob Hurst, what is supposed to be gained by a post like that?
Mike, you're absolutely right to criticize this part, which is simply a bald-faced lie:
"If this war is so important, why aren't Republicans volunteering? Why are they not urging their sons and daughters to step up to the plate and serve their nation's vital interests?"
Yeah, and did you know 4,000 Jews didn't go to work at the WTC on 9/11? Same kind of drivel.
I'll also note with amusement that as long as we're playing at this level, the military's very heavily Republican voting pattern these days could lead to an interesting counter-attack along the lines of "they are volunteering and serving, it's Democrats who won't defend the country, and why not?"
In fairness, the part about asking people to in some way put their money where their mouths are is a legitimate argument. One can respond with "No, support should be forthcoming some other way...." Or "the present state of affairs is a better idea than your suggestion because..." But there's a real argument to be had there.
Mixed Humor said: "This is nothing but a cheap rhetorical ploy to stiffle debate."
I'm not sure why you would say this, unless it's precisely to AVOID debate. The Army is coming up short in its recruiting goals, seriously short. I asked what I think is a reasonable question; if this war is so important, why are not those who support it stepping forward? The national debt is rising, and our children or even grandchildren will have to pay for it. The military is running out of trucks and other equipment because it appears nobody wants to pay the real costs. This is America. If something needs doing, we do it ourselves. Is not that our ideal? I still have not received an answer to my question. It's all well and good to send someone else to do your dirty work, but at least you could call for those who support this war to pay for it.
>>By the way, thank you for your service and that of your son-in-law.
You are quite welcome. It's a matter of honor, I think, and honor is important to me. I do not see much sense of honor among this administration, and, frankly, to me many of the supporters of this war look to me to be caught up in grand theories and rhetoric.
Mike Daly asked:
>>Bob Hurst, what is supposed to be gained by a post like that?
To be honest, I am and have been disgusted by people who question the patriotism of others but are, themselves, unwilling to serve or sacrifice. The Republicans have charged Democrats with being unpatriotic and so forth. Yet, I have seen little willingness among Republicans to step forward in the numbers needed or even to be willing to open their pocketbooks.
Joe Katzman said:
>>Mike, you're absolutely right to criticize this part, which is simply a bald-faced lie:
"If this war is so important, why aren't Republicans volunteering? Why are they not urging their sons and daughters to step up to the plate and serve their nation's vital interests?"
A bald-faced lie? Then where are the troops needed to fill the ranks? The 3rd ID, perhaps one of the finest units ever to have served, is being used up. My son in law has spent a year and a half over there. His unit's equipment is wearing out, morale is dropping, and the quality of new recruits is much decreased. At the risk of generalizing, they are not of the quality that is needed. So, if this war is so important to win, let's have a draft, then, and raise taxes.
>>it's Democrats who won't defend the country, and why not?"
As noted, this Democrat and proud liberl did. I would argue that the war in Iraq is not defending this country, and, in fact, is making it more vulnerable, not safer. Just what will you do, people, when the 3rd ID is worn out?
For the record, I supported the war in Afghanistan. Did then, still do. My brother's son served there, and I think he did good work. That nest of snakes needed to be taken out. My main criticism was that the Tora Bora campaign was botched. What idiot decided to outsource holding the passes? My cynicism says that, like the alleged 4,000 Jews mentioned by Mike Daly, Osama was more useful to Bush free. My reality says it was stupidity, or a desire to avoid casualties (which generally leads to them).
>>In fairness, the part about asking people to in some way put their money where their mouths are is a legitimate argument.
Thank you. I really hate to see the country bankrupted to pay for this war when we just had a big round of tax cuts for upper income earners. I have said many times, and at the risk of repeating myself, if this war is as important as all you folk of the high rhetoric claim, then it should be treated seriously. The manpower and equipment to fight it should be made available, and the money should be raised by tax increases. And by the way, do you know how shameful and hypocritical the administration looks by trying to cut a billion dollars out of the VA medical system? Oh, the talk about supporting our troops is cheap, but the reality is something else again.
Hurst, you have made many rather ridiculous comments and exaggerations. The Iraq war is expensive but it is not "bankrupting" this country.
Frankly, I'm not amused by your play to class warfare with your irrelevant reference to ( and exaggeration of ) tax cuts for "upper income".
And where I'm most offended is this nonsense about "questioning patriotism". This faux charge is the favorite of Democrats stung by legitimate criticism of their own despicable attempts to undermine our war effort for partisan gain. We heard it from Durbin apologists until even Durbin chickened out on his own comments. You come here and echo the "chickenhawk" crap and repeat that line?
I think the lack of seriousness here is yours.
Robin Roberts repeats the usual conservative tactic of avoiding the question with ad hominem attacks. I suppose the "chickenhawk" claim must sting to people who self-define themselves as patriots and who believe themselves to be exhibiting the highest of patriotic motives. You can, of course, believe what you wish. We liberals have our own myths. However, I also will tell you that, to me, the "chickenhawk" or "Yellow Elephant" appear to be spot on. I do not see the conservatives as doing anything other than spouting rhetoric. I see no evidence the administration and its supporters wish to pay the true cost of the war or even be honest about those costs. Run up the national debt.
As for class warfare, it is the Republicans who are most guilty of it, or so it appears. The lower and middle income earners are paying for this war as social services are slashed, while tax cuts for the top earners are preserved. Now that's a fact, and I haven't heard an answer to that, just avoidance. Words like "ridiculous" are almost always a sign the question is being avoided. I learned about that in high school; when one has no answers, attack.
And, Robin Roberts, you deny the "chickenhawk" claim? What have you, personally, done for this nation? Have you served in the military? Has your son? Your daughter? Your brother? If you are so willing to send others to their deaths, do you not understand how hypocritical you look when you are unwilling to go?
A Republican friend asked me whether I didn't think it was a great idea to install a democratic regime in Iraq and if that, in and of itself, might have been sufficient cause for the war. I replied I thought it was an excellent ideal, if it could be pulled off at a reasonable cost. My opinion is that politics and diplomacy are arts of the possible. Objectives and gains must be balanced by costs. I now doubt that it can be done at all, let alone at a reasonable cost. I think had our planning been proper, and had we taken the surrender of Saddam's forces instead of just dispersing them, we might have succeeded. But now, so long as we are there, the suicide bombers will keep crossing the border. There's an unlimited supply of those wishing martyrdom. Perhaps we should establish border crossings with a line for martyrs and machine guns at the other end, but I doubt they are that anxious.
Only by the US withdrawing will the flow of suicide bombers slow, for then the fight will become an Iraqi civil war. So, let's cut to the chase.
bq. Only by the US withdrawing will the flow of suicide bombers slow, for then the fight will become an Iraqi civil war. So, let's cut to the chase.
Except it ain't Iraqis who are exploding, in case you haven't noticed the foreign/domestic suicide bomber ratio. And once Zarqawi's set up his Islamic Republic of Anbar, you think he's just going to leave us alone?
Bob, you started the ad hominem attacks. I however, did not make a single one. Perhaps you could learn what an ad hominem attack is, by reviewing your own postings. For your comments are the classic example.
The "chickenhawk" argument is a dishonest one. The idea that only those who have served in the military are able to control our forces or wisely rule is the basis for the military junta's of Argentina. The concept is what got the SF novelist Heinlein called a fascist.
The reality is that people like you, Bob, don't even mean the argument. Certainly you haven't thought it through at all. Its just a convenient cheap name to throw.
As for my own service, Bob, I don't play Internet Fantasy Resume with people of low character.
Bob Hurst,
The “chickenhawk” argument you raise is shopworn, and it’s toxic for a democracy. It’s also troubling precisely because it has such great appeal. We gladly accept part of its converse: honoring Veterans (like you, your nephew), and those who are currently serving (like your son-in-law). And why shouldn’t we demand that war supporters step up to the plate?
The late Washington Post reporter Micheal Kelly offered his thoughts in this 2001 essay:
The US population in 1940 was 132 million; suppose two-thirds had the right to vote. 16 million served in WW2; let’s add in half again as many veterans. By the “chickenhawk” (or Starship Troopers ) argument, then, about 63 million citizens should have been disqualifed from voting about, say, the Cold War or Korea.
The Census estimates that, of the current population of 296 million (~200 million eligible to vote), about 1.5 million are on active duty, and about 27 million are Veterans.
I’m sympathetic to the argument’s emotional appeal, and do heavily weigh the opinions of those with military experience, on national-security questions. But when I take chickenhawk thinking to its logical conclusion-- disenfranchising 170 million Americans on matters of War and Peace--I reject it as unAmerican and anti-democratic. I also think it would lead to bad policy--“to a [certain sort of] man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”.
PS -- Best for all sides to refrain from answering ad hominem arguments in kind. Save them for another time, and another website...
The chickenhawk argument is especially disingenous because those who use it absolutely dont mean it. If the military were the only ones allowed to vote, Bush would have taken 50 states. If the military was the only one's who's opinions counted, we would have more, not less troops in Iraq.
To Dan Darling:
Yes, I have noticed that most of the suicide bombers are "foreign fighters." I believe that our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool al-Qaeda has other than, perhaps, our presence in Saudi Arabia. There were 135 suicide bombers this May, and perhaps 1/10th that in May 2004. I believe they can sustain this for a long time.
You only suppose that al-Zarqawi will establish his "Republic of Anbar." To my knowledge, the majority Shia have no particular desire for international terrorism. The bombers are in support of the Sunnis, not the Shia. We claim to fear Shia fundamentalism, but it does not appear to be Shia fundamentalism driving this.
I think it is unavoidable that an Islamic Republic will be established in Iraq. We can only hope it is not an Islamist one, but the indications are that is unlikely, unless, of course, the Islamicists ("Islamofascists") become strong enough through their opposition position to us. Therefore it seems to me that our presence increases the risk of an Islamicist government in Iraq rather than reducing it.
As to Robin Roberts who claims to make no ad hominem attacks, his last line gives the lie to that.
As for the "chickenhawk argument" (CA) perhaps you might consider that conservatives have, for many years, questioned the patriotism of liberals and have wrapped themselves in the mantle of the flag. Perhaps the CA is a result and answer to that shopworn charge. Perhaps those who wrap themselves in the flag and question the patriotism of others might expect the CA in return if they have not paid the price to question the patriotism of another. As for its speciousness, I suppose both arguments are probably irrelevant at some level, and if people questioned not the patriotism of others but their policies, such arguments would not be used. I, for one, am tired of having my patriotism questioned by conservatives who have never served their nation and who have sacrificed little or nothing, and I will not stand for it. Anyone who questions my facts or my interpretations or who supports different policies has as much right to his ideas as I have to mine. But anyone who questions my patriotism, or John Kerry's, or Max Cleland's or even George McGovern's (a highly decorated bomber pilot in WW II) had better have the credentials for that criticism. And most, it seems, do not.
I also think that those who support the war may have lost sight of the fact that there are real families involved making real sacrifices. When the supporters of that war in the form of the administration seek to cut medical benefits for those soldiers and families, then it looks to me that they are showing contempt for those who put their lives on the line for the high and mighty policies of diplomacy and are engaging in a form of class warfare against those who bear the brunt of service.
But enough of that. To Mark Buehner, actually, what I would do in my ideal world would be to require two years service from every citizen. That service could take many forms other than military. However, that will never happen. And, no, I would not restrict the vote or the right to criticize only to those with military service. However, as stated above, I do question the right of anyone to criticize the patriotism of others and to wrap himself in flag under which he has not served.
Another Republican friend of mine asked why I didn't seem to understand we have a stake over there, now, and whether or not Bush has botched the beginning, do we not have to "stay the course?" Of course we have a stake in the conflict. Of course our interests are involved. But how involved, and at what price? Am I willing to mortgage my house, for example, in a game of poker when the stakes are not worth the investment? That is what it all comes down to for me--cost and benefit. I believe the administration has lost its chance. By being dishonest as to the real casus belli, the American people were never asked to sign on to the real causes and for the real price, which is now becoming evident. Whatever benefits there are to us are no longer worth the investment.
Perhaps I differ from many of my liberal colleagues who frame their opposition on moral grounds. Morality, as we see in the current "culture wars," is a dangerous ground on which to build policy because there is no general agreement as to what is moral. Yes, it should be a consideration, as in considering what our nation's values are and whether or not we are upholding them, but declaring "war is wrong" does not make sense to me. Far more important to me is to determine the costs and benefits of our courses of action and how best to achieve our national interests with the resources we are willing to expend or invest.
I do not see that our national interests are served by continuing this expensive and probably unwinnable war, or at least unwinnable with the resources we are willing to commit. I think that increasingly the public opinion will swing this direction, and perhaps as early as the 2006 midterm elections we may see Democratic gains and Republican losses. The administration will find itself increasingly isolated by its defensive stance, and even its supporters, concerned about their own re-election will abandon it. It is unfortunate indeed that they were dishonest from the beginning because I think not only was a great opportunity was missed by a precipitate rush to war, but the United States could have traded on the good feeling toward us following 9/11 to have removed Saddam Hussein with minimal bloodshed and could have established a friendly, less tyranical government at minimal cost. Sadly, we are now in the classic quagmire, and none of our choices are particularly palatable. However, I believe that, in the end, our stated aims will not be achieved, so let's cut to the chase. As my wife said in 1967 about Vietnam, "They're going to be shooting at the boats taking us away when we leave, so why not get it over with, now?" She was only wrong about ships being involved.
I believe that our presence in Iraq is the greatest recruiting tool al-Qaeda has other than, perhaps, our presence in Saudi Arabia.
Should we have left Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Or for that matter, should we have lifted the sanctions on Iraq (OBL's other major propoganda point)?
Bob Hurst (#32),
I haven't questioned your patriotism. I can't, really, "Bob Hurst" is simply a handle connected to some paragraphs on a web page. You write with a Vietnam vet's perspective so I take it as so; it doesn't make your arguments better or worse than those of (currently-serving) John Abizaid or (veteran) Ward Churchill or (civilian) Dan Darling.
You amplified your thoughts of #21 in #27, saying
This seems to be a pretty exact restatement of the chickenhawk rationale. While sympathetic, I posted Michael Kelly's riposte in #30. Having had time to reflect, I wonder what you make of this argument now.
Seems to me that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If conservatives' "questioning the patriotism of liberals and wrapping themselves in the mantle of the flag," is entirely baseless, shouldn't valid and logical arguments form the persuasive response?
To add specifics to this, here is self-avowed conservative non-veteran Mark Steyn on a recent speech by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL):
Surely, the best arguments to be made by Durbin in rebutting Steyn's charges go beyond, "you're a chickenhawk!"
Bob Hurst writes: "As to Robin Roberts who claims to make no ad hominem attacks, his last line gives the lie to that. "
Actually, Bob, you misrepresent what I wrote which was that I had not made one when you had claimed that I had. You were inventing that claim to cover your own poor manners. Buck up, and take responsibility for your own actions for once.
Your repetition of the false claim that conservatives are attacking the "patriotism" of liberals does you no more credit. The Cleland example is especially egregious since that was shown to be false long ago.
The attempts of liberals to misrepresent attacks on their actual conduct and statements as "questioning their patriotism" show that they, and especially you Bob, wish to insulate themselves from the consequences of their irresponsible statements. We will not allow these dishonest tactics to stop our criticism. Be assured of that Bob.
Perhaps Robin Roberts could correct me and demonstrate how Saxby Chambliss' charges had been proved baseless. I believe that Chambliss attacked Cleland "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution." Cleland's treason was to vote for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. Interestingly, among those in support of the 56 to 44 vote was Sen. Bill Frist.
I also am aware that the infamous ad featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein didn't actually use the words questioning his patriotism. Didn't have to. The subliminal images said it all. "A vote for Max Cleland is a vote for these guys."
And to AMac who suggested that valid and logical replies should be the response. Yes, so one would think, but they seem to be singularly ineffective. Tom Harkin, a decorated war-veteran pilot, was attacked as well, and reasoned replies seem to do no good in the current atmosphere of fear fostered by our current administration. I am reminded of the old saw from my era when some peace activists used the slogan, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Hmmm . . . it seems to me that the concern is if "they" gave a war and only the other side came. It seems to me that out of self-defense it is necessary to reply in kind, at least in the current environment. One would hope someday we could return to more seemly discourse.
Oh, and just to set the record straight, I am a Vietnam-era vet, but I never served "in country." My entire tour of duty was spent at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The Durbin case is illustrative. Durbin never actually compared US soldiers to Nazis. He said,
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings." However, the Right counted on the outrage of their charges sticking. Now I think Durbin was an idiot for saying that. Far better would have been to have remained within the context of actual events and question whether chaining people to the floor in their own wastes is commensurate with our values. However, he didn't actually compare US military to Nazis. So the charge by Steyn that he did is demonstrably false at least in the strict sense of Durbin's words. Yet, I do wonder about the intent and lump this with Saxby Chambliss' attacks on Max Cleland with one important exception--Durbin's attack wasn't directed at a political opponent.
But, back to the main topic. I shall be very interested to learn my son in law's first-hand experiences. He and my daughter will be visiting tomorrow, as he is enjoying his mid-tour furlough. He is stationed in Sadr City, which is much calmer than when he was first assigned there, and his duty recently has been training Iraqis.
I think that the sooner we can turn over whatever fight there is to the Iraqis, the better because so long as we are a presence, the al-Q people can effectively recruit suicide bombers and become more of a power in the government to come.
Bob Hurst,
Re. Sen. Durbin, you wrote:
The WaPo reporter covering the story used the topic sentence,
Al-Jazeera's article (actually pretty fair, in this instance) starts with
So in this case, it's a broad spectrum of people that saw Durbin as making a direct comparison. To propose otherwise seems like an "is is" argument, to me.
There are more problems with "closing Gitmo" than the Durbins of the world seem to have thought about. Here's the most recent story of released detainees who now procalim their "guilt," and their enthusiasm about returning to anti-American jihad. Perhaps it would have been better if the Geneva Conventions had been followed from the beginning, WW2-style: summary battlefield courts-martial and firing-squads for illegal combatants (no-uniform, hiding among civilians, &c), followed by GC protected POW status for those found not-guilty. "Civilizations aren't murdered; they commit suicide." To offer gratuitous, unconditional protections to our most ruthless and fanatical external enemies strikes me as such a pact.
Durbin’s spokesman “said the comments were intended to compare ‘torture’ at Guantanamo to torture during the Nazi regime, not to equate Americans at the base to the Nazis and similar groups.” (CITE)
Talk about splitting hairs. The actions were Nazi-like, but not the people who committed them.
Bob, you just proved my point for me. Chambliss attacked Cleland for Cleland's voting record. That's a substantive issue. But evidently, in your world, its ok to suppress legitimate political debate by wrapping oneself in one's previous military service.
Its not ok in mine.
I appreciate the assistance in proving my point.
As for Durbin, his pathetic excuses only confirm his statements were irrational and ignorant.
To AMac:
My reply concerning Durbin was in response to your contention that Durbin had compared American soldiers to Nazis. That's not what he said. Nowhere in his remarks, which I quoted exactly, did he actually compare American soldiers to Nazis. This is particularly relevant to the rather absurd charge by Robin Roberts, "The Cleland example is especially egregious since that was shown to be false long ago." So far he has failed to point out how it was false.
With respect to Roberts claim that I made his point, he must have enjoyed entirely too much sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll in his youth. Roberts claims that "Chambliss attacked Cleland for Cleland's voting record." Robin, I never claimed he didn't. What I did claim was that his attack was a direct attact on his patriotism. Chambliss' exact words, which I quoted, were that Cleland was a traitor "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution." Now, interestingly, as I mentioned and which Roberts conveniently neglected to mention, Bill Frist cast the same vote as Cleland. However, he apparently didn't break his oath. So, if this sort of charge is "legitimate political debate" then so is the "chickenhawk argument."
I would like to get serious for a moment and discuss the matter of "Gitmo" raised by AMac.
I will freely admit that I don't know what the right thing is. The matter of what to do with them represents a problem that has perhaps not arisen since the days of piracy. To me, these people appear much akin to pirates captured by the forces of a nation state. Having said that, not all pirates were hanged, and it seems to me that some of these people probably are quite low level types. Some may even be conscripts or unwilling warriors. We should be weeding them out and perhaps releasing them.
I am uncomfortable with chaining such people to the floor in their own wastes and similar practices. Whether they are vicious murdering thugs or not is irrelevant. We claim to represent a special morality as a nation. We pride ourselves on being the "good guys." Whether we are or not is not the question and clearly a lot of the world sees no difference between us and anyone else. However, it is our claim to be better than anyone else that is at question here. If our value is that we are fair and honorable, then while we certainly can incarcerate these terrorists or enemy soldiers, we should not be chaining them to the floor in their own wastes because to do so destroys our claim to the right to wear a white hat. The battle then devolves into the conflict portrayed in Eastwood's "Unforgiven." It's the bad guys vs. the worse guys. Personally I think we are better than that. Moreover, I think that most interrogators agree that torture does not yield truth, for those under torture will tell their interrogators what they want to hear just to stop the pain. I haven't read the FBI's report, so I do not know whether the charges detailed in that report that so outraged Durbin are widespread or limited to a few miscreants.
Actually Bob, I did show how your charge was false. Further, I've shown how both Cleland and yourself use these false charges to dishonestly attempt to suppress debate.
And Bob, repeating the word "torture" when there has not been any, is a similar kind of dishonesty. But that is the current Democrat talking point. And it intentionally undermines our war effort. That it does so is obvious enough to conclude that you intend to undermine the US war effort.
That you would suggest releasing detainees just because they are "low-level" also demonstrates some troubling characteristics of you, Bob. There simply is no rational reason to release people who have taken up arms against us on the pathetic excuse that they are "low level" murderers.
Your utter lack of seriousness reveals that your suggestions cannot be taken seriously. In that, you represent the core Democrat very well today.