Joe Klein Embraces Defeat
Joe Klein Embraces Defeat
In a new column for TIME, pundit Joe Klein declares that President Bush is “(still) winning the war at home.” By that Klein means that Bush is beating his opponent in the domestic debate about Iraq. Klein’s evidence? Bush called the new Iraqi Defense minister an “interesting cat” and Zarqawi “a dangerous dude.” Also, Klein saw Bush strut.
Klein doesn’t mention that recent polling found just 35 percent of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, nearly 60 percent support reducing the number of troops and 53 percent support a timetable for withdrawal.
Klein reports that, last week, “Bush and Rove were reminding voters that the choice would be between the Democratic strategy of ‘cut and run’ and the Republican war against Islamic ‘fascists,’ as the President called them.” Klein calls variations of this strategy “scurrilous,” “inaccurate” and “lethally incomplete.”
Then, he uses the same argument. Here’s how Klein describes the options of those who oppose Bush’s strategy in Iraq:
The political option is to embrace “cut and run”; call for an immediate withdrawal, as Kerry did; and hope the public is…sick of Bush and sick of the war…But embracing defeat is a risky political strategy, especially for a party not known for its warrior ethic. In fact, the responsible path is the Democrats’ only politically plausible choice: they will have to give yet another new Iraqi government one last shot to succeed.
This is the same false choice presented by Bush and Rove. Those who want a new direction in Iraq and a timeline for withdrawal are not “embracing defeat.” The way to embrace defeat, as the last three years have demonstrated, is to stick with this administration’s approach.
Opponents of the President’s strategy have laid out a serious alternative strategy for success in Iraq and against terrorist networks worldwide. It deserves to be treated seriously by people like Joe Klein. (For details, read CAP’s plan for success and a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, Strategic Redeployment 2.0.)
Greg Sargent and Duncan Black have more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Klein jumped the shark more than a few years ago for me, when Primary Colors came out. I think he tries to come across as “fair and balanced” and instead appears incapable of critical thought. He’s useless.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:48 pmJoke Line, a classic Vichy Democrat/liberal. Embracing the right-wing Republican framing for all of his opinions.
This powdered fop wouldn’t know a warrior from a housekeeper.
-GSD
June 19th, 2006 at 12:48 pmJoe says “cat” all the time too. In fact he’s the only one I’ve heard say it in years besides some old musicians I know.
I guess Bush knows how to pull that string with Klein – what a sucker he is. Foll me once………
June 19th, 2006 at 12:49 pmI loved the line about the “warrior ethic” do we really need to go over who has served in combat and who got deferments, and cushy national guard slots?
June 19th, 2006 at 12:50 pmMy letter to Time:
Joe Klein’s column concluding President Bush is still winning the rhetoric war was mostly correct. Of course, to proclaim we are winning the physical war is Iraq is dubious — no matter how much Bush’s spokesman tries to downplay our 2,500+ soldiers’ deaths and how much he tries to denigrate the media’s coverage. Are our two currently missing soldiers “just numbers” now or will Tony Snow wait until they are dead to declare that?
My only complaint about Mr. Klein’s column is the use of the intentionally misleading “cut and run”. It’s a slander to previous war heroes like John Murtha and John Kerry who have proposed a reasonable and well-thought out plan. None of the Democratic leadership has said we should precipitously cut and run; they say we should redeploy smartly – so our troops can swoop in when needed but evade the sitting duck status President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have them in now.
Joe knows better than to use that phrase like he did. It should be beneath him – but he fell for the same trap that Rove has set for all of us: will we extract our troops safely and with speed from an intractable civil war (facilitated by our lack of plans) or will we allow the troops to be used as cannon fodder and rhetorical weapons against the common sense debate our nation needs in this time of war?
June 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pmThat’s an excellent frame, Judd. Imagine every Democrat on television saying, ‘Look, the choice in Iraq is simple: we can either embrace defeat, or change direction.’ I like it!
June 19th, 2006 at 12:53 pmKlein and the American people should be more troubled why we continue to give Karl Rove a platform and forum to continue to divide America in a time of war. Clearly, Rove’s tactic is to use his side’s weakest point (Iraq) and make it the other side’s weak point–the only way to do this is to divide us. Sadly, this Rove ploy is so successful since the American people are so easily swayed by talking points and punchlines–2006’s “Flip flop” will certainly be “Cut and Run.”
June 19th, 2006 at 12:55 pm#5 Adrift I agree. Democrats needed to frame the argument as “Staying the course” vs. “Changing the course”. The Bush administration kept changing the reasons for getting into the Iraq War, so they have never been able to define “victory”. Democrats should go ahead and define it for them, then define a new course. “Leave No Soldier Behind”!
June 19th, 2006 at 12:58 pmSure, this is just like the Cold War. Remember when we “embraced defeat” by not invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the mid 1950s, and by not invading Cuba in the early 1960s?
Those failures to endorse widespread decimation of our groundtroops was how we “embraced defeat” in the Cold War, and thereby let the Communists win, right?
Idiot.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:59 pmWith articles like this one from Klien, Bush’s rhetoric carries on…if he had his way, Hillary/Biden will run unopposed in 08
June 19th, 2006 at 1:01 pmFitting for a lapdog to reference the word “cat” over and over again.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pmWhy does anyone listen to this prattling boob? His sphincter replaced his mouth years ago. Totally unplugged from anything but Joereality.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pmJudd, Congratulations!! You’re improving. This threads headline is only slightly wrong. Had it said, “Jack Murtha Embraces Defeat” you would have been right on the money. When Mutiny Murtha was expounding on the House floor about a “need for a change of direction – like President Reagan in Beirut, And President Clinton in Somalia”, HE was EMBRACING defeat with open arms. (Any honest progs out there will HAVE to admit those two incidents were not our finest military victories.) Sadly, the Democrat Party has become the party invested in the DEFEAT of America for their own political gains. What pathetic losers the Dems have lined up as their strategists.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:08 pmThis is your America MA.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmHow fondly we old hands remember giving new “governments” of South Vietnam another 3/6/9 months. At least in the new, improved battle against International Communism–er, Islamofascism–we don’t murder the guys we replace. But the end result will be the same. And remember, we didn’t withdraw troops from Vietnam after a negotiated settlement, we pulled them out ASAP after being militarily defeated. That’s what the old Nixon hands will do this time, too. Incompetent then, incompetent now. Only now they’re infinitely more wealthy men as a result of their incompetence.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmBush called Iraq minister an “interesting cat” and Al-Zarqawi a “dangerous dude”..he the closed the press conferece by saying “be excellent to each other” and playing air guitar.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmI have been away for a couple of weeks and have not had the opportunity to read TP very often during that time. The MSM is not much help in keeping a person informed, but didn’t Bush just hold a “summit” at Camp David to develop a new plan for Iraq? Did they really only get from this summit that the US is doing what is needed so “stay the course” is the best plan of action our so called leaders can come up with?
June 19th, 2006 at 1:16 pmEvery single Republican can STFU until Iraq is at peace with itself and the world.
After running the ENTIRE FEDERAL US GOVERNMENT FOR SIX YEARS it should be apparent to everyone that there isn’t a single problem, foreign or domestic, that isn’t the responsibility of the Republican Party.
YOU BROKE IT. TIME TO PAY THE BILL.
And stop trying to kiss our @$$ about the ‘really neat progress’ you think you’re making here or there, it’s just insulting that you think AMERICANS can’t get anything done in AMERICA without a bunch of fatassed, whiny rich kids lording over us. Stop acting like you own the water rights to freedom and have a copyright on democracy.
That kind of stupidity just brings out the torches and pitchforks in normal people.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:19 pmI agree with you Mighty, the Democratic party needs better strategists.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pmWe see our propaganda money hard at work. More to come and don’t forget CHICHEN LITTLE THE SKY IS FALLING. Bush said it right Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me. Well folks we’ve been played for fools for 5 years any anyone who is stupid enough to believe him now can honestly called myselves a fool.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:23 pmOK, Mighty Aphrodite or anyone else who supports this war. Maybe you can tell us what “victory” we unenlightened progressives should be embracing in Iraq and when we can proudly, victoriously bring our soldiers back to the U.S.? I don’t see myself as a “defeatist” American, just a pragmatic one. We must define “victory” in order to set a reachable goal and provide all the resources (money, personnel, etc) necessary to pursue the goal OR get out. What are we/Bush administration trying to accomplish in Iraq that will truly let us say “mission accomplished”? This IS Bush’s war and it is his duty to define the mission in a manner that I and other Americans can consider thoughtful and, then, perhaps, support. I have yet to see a cogent definition of “victory” that satisfies me.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:30 pmYou already lost. The so-called might of your army is being reduced to broken and dead kids everyday.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:35 pmBruce – I would think many of the activities you supposedly abhor in your link, would appeal to the sickest, weakest progressive link. When you visit the homepages of some of the twisted posters here and catch a whiff of what THEY’RE into, the stench is foul.
But you cannot intelligently counter my argument that Mutiny Murtha Embraces defeat. THAT’s YOUR America.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:36 pm“party not known for its warrior ethic?” i guess klein doesn’t remember what party was in the white house when we won wwII. or wwI. or, who the isolationist, america first party was. he should just shut his igrorant mouth.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:36 pmAnd what the hell does that mean? That killing 3 y/o is warrior ethics? Does this guy know what is a)warrior, b)ethics?
June 19th, 2006 at 1:46 pmDid he write the Bushido of the Samurais?
Furthermore, what does victory mean to him? No more terrorists? They cant even defined what a terrorist is. This people is completely out of their minds, but I could understand because they are making profits out piled bodies, but the people who supports them that gain nothing…I really dont understand them.
What do you gain out of this, Mighty? What a poor sad person you must be.
Klein doesn’t mention that recent polling found just 35 percent of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, nearly 60 percent support reducing the number of troops and 53 percent support a timetable for withdrawal.
Judd,
If this statement was true, why didn’t all democrats vote for the timetable last week? It seems to me that if the majority would support a timetable, then why not vote for it, unless they know something the rest of us don’t?
June 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm#23 – “But you cannot intelligently counter my argument that Mutiny Murtha Embraces defeat. ”
Actually, your argument is founded on faulty (partisan) logic in the midst of rhetorical quicksand and, thus, has no stability and no support.
To use your logic would mean that Pres. Bush is not “for” getting Usama bin Laden because of the one statement where he said “I don’t know where he is, I just don’t think about him anymore.”
So, you either believe that Pres. Bush is against capturing/killing Usama bin Laden or you believe that Rep. Murtha supports the troops. Pick one here, sweetie!
June 19th, 2006 at 1:50 pmKlein is a Bush stooge and apologist, so anyone who reads his stupid Time Magazine fluff pieces is as dumb as him! Enough said > Time has become a propaganda rag!
June 19th, 2006 at 1:52 pmComment by Dennis Ward
I beg to differ, but Enrico Fermi and Oppenheimer, who designed and built the first nuke to be dropped, were the ones who “won” the war, after killing thousands of japanese civilians. US was attacked in a military base (Pearl Harbor) whereas you attacked civilians…twice. Russians did win the war, after loosing 10 millions of citizens, and resisting in Stalingrad. So, my point is that, both of your parties Dems and Reps are plain murderers when they have the chance.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:55 pmYou are correct. The Democrats that voted for House resolution 861 are DINOs.
June 19th, 2006 at 1:55 pmmighty aphrodite
That is because you haven’t posted an argument, you have posted a accusation without any logical backing.
Unless of course someone saying “This isn’t working lets try something else” strikes you as “Embracing defeat.”
June 19th, 2006 at 2:01 pmMighty Aphrodite,
You once again are projecting. The reason why we didn’t march on Bahgdad was because George H W Bush’s Secretary of State thought it would be a really bad idea. Here is what he said.
Guess who that was.
DICK CHENEY
You once again have shoved your foot down your own throat.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:07 pm#31 Aphrodite It wasn’t just progressives who didn’t advocate toppling Saddam in the first Gulf War. Some of the same Iraq War hawks in this administration were against such an action, offering that instability, a power vacuum, and civil war were likely. What changed twelve years later? And further, what defines the ability of well trained Iraqi military and domestic security forces to defend their own country? How does our continued physical presence in Iraq contribute to that training? What have we and are we doing to train those Iraqi soldiers? And will they be Sunni, Shiite, or Kurdish soldiers? And can they fight side by side? If there are 50,000 trained Iraqi soldiers, can we bring home 50,000 of our soldiers? Why would Saddam hide WMD and not use them against us? If we “knew” he had WMD, why didn’t we target them to take them out before we sent boots in? So many questions, so little debate.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:15 pm“OK, Mighty Aphrodite or anyone else who supports this war. Maybe you can tell us what “victory†we unenlightened progressives should be embracing in Iraq and when we can proudly, victoriously bring our soldiers back to the U.S.?
Comment to mighty: I notice that you DID NOT even attempt to answer this question.
Come on, you know you can intelligently tell all of us EXACTLY what all this death and destruction is accomplishing. You know, come on, tell us.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:15 pmMy question is, what happens when evidence finally emerges proving that there were WMDs in Iraq? This will blow up away the lame defense by the left in their efforts to defeat the Bush policy for their own political gain. I don’t expect an apology but I expect many Americans to wake up to who the democrats really are and vote more of them out of office come November.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:16 pmmilbog,
Just keep holding your breath and ignore the facts.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#37 – So exactly where do you expect this evidence to come from? Are you really this niave or just really, really stupid?
We have been in Iraq for more than three years and this idiotic administration has yet to find WMD’s or evidence thay even existed prior to our attack.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pmmilbog
Nice bit of sarcasm, after all, its not like Saddam would have had to have been the most responsible dictator in the history of dictatorships to have you know, not used them against the US when they invaded his country with the express purpose of toppling his regime now is it?
June 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pm#31 Aprodite, part 2. I DON’T hate America or Bush. I’m a patriotic citizen who values the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I fear that foundation of our country is under attack. I am also a practicing Christian who does not want anyone else defining my, or any other American’s, doctrine or religious beliefs and I fear for that religious freedom. My voiced opinions are to protect these values because I fear the “enemy within” as much as the “enemy without”.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThe Republicans are good at Madison Avenue politics – advertising and catchy slogans like “cut and run.” Truth or facts don’t matter – just get the slogan out there and it will be believed.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:25 pmHow did the Democrats get the receiving end of the slanderous “cut and run?” Let’s review the wars of just my lifetime.
Vietnam? No, it was Nixon and Ford, who oversaw our exit from that country.
Korea? No. Truman was president for the first two years; it was
Eisenhower who yanked the troops, leaving a 38th parallel stalemate and POWs behind.
The most recent cut and run, which many believe inspired the entire Mideast terror strategy of bleed-them-until-they-leave, was Ronald Reagan withdrawing U.S. forces from Lebanon after the bombing of our Marine barracks there in 1983.
When reporters like Klein prostitute themselves as shills for the lies and distortions of Bush&Co, Rove, Cheney et al, they do everyone a disservice, including themselves.
mighty aphrodite,
I noticed that you ignored the fact that it was Dick Cheney that said we shouldn’t march into Iraq. Best to just ignore the facts eh?
June 19th, 2006 at 2:25 pmI left one off the list — who pulled the troops out of Iraq in Desert Storm? Bush I.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:26 pmThe people who truly embrace defeat are those who insist on continuing with a plan that has no definitions. What is victory? A stable government in Iraq? How is that stability defined and who defines it? Is victory the end of terror in the world? Umm, terrorism has been around in some shape or form throughout the entire history of mankind, how do you define the end? Of course for me it comes back to why are we there in the first place? Do we have any reason to be there? Is there a better way to determine the course of victory?
Back in WWII Ike let Monty set the plan for the break out from Normandy, or at least have a pretty good say in the plan. Monty’s version failed miserably and Ike adapted to a new plan, or rather shifted the emphasis of her plan south. When the front stabilized at the German border Ike allowed Monty to have a say in the plans. Monty’s plan led to a disaster at Arnhem. Yet if Ike was Bush he would have continued to slug it out with the Germans outside Caen rather than changing plans and end running the south end of the German lines. If Ike was Bush in Holland he would have continued to pound the northern end of the German lines rather than probing until he found a suitable Rhine crossing. Adaptability is a key facet of leadership. What some call Bush’s resolve I call ignorant stubbornness. Ignorant because he should have the best information available yet he continues to stay the course set for him by an elitist think tank. That’s why Bush and republicans are embracing defeat. That and the belief that changing your mind is an admission that you made a mistake. When in fact with warfare it is more an admission that you recognize that facts and circumstances have changed and the plan needs adapting.
Murtha’s plan to withdraw “over the horizon” but not so far that we could not still influence things is financially responsible and it will allow us to see who the people of Iraq truly want to lead them. If civil war breaks out, oops it already has, but lets pretend. If it breaks out and the country partitions into three elements Shiite, Sunni & Kurd, is that such a bad thing? One argument is that if we withdraw those people will be slaughtered. Well, 1) they already are being slaughtered and 2) we have had three years to build an army and police force yet stability is nowhere to be found. Perhaps since our trainees and associates are being killed by the score, we might be the problem. I know in the minds of MA and her/his/it’s ilk that is blasphemy to admit that we might be the problem, but we may just be it. Is it in our best interests to have the Shiites take over and run the place? I doubt it too much Iranian influence and we don’t really want to create another terrorist haven, oops, too late on that one.
So what exactly is wrong with stepping over the horizon and seeing what happens? If Iraq develops into a dreaded terror state then our rested and refitted armed forces can move in and disassemble the government fairly quickly and easily. We have had ships in the Persian gulf for 20+ years now, so our ability to project airpower is always there. And we can pre-position supplies and equipment in Diego Garcia, Kuwait the UAE and several other locations similar to how we pre-positioned gear in Europe for the last 50 years. With the pieces in place it would not be difficult to re-establish a new government. What is difficult to do, and we have seen it now with Iraq, Afghanistan and for the Israelis in Lebanon, is to establish a government supported by outside powers not accepted as legitimate by the populace of the invaded country.
To simply say someone such as Murtha is embracing defeat without any logical argument to back it up is astoundingly partisan and shortsighted. When I say Bush and his minions embrace defeat it is because they can see that their way is not working, yet the refuse to change course. Heck Bush says no timetables because the Iraqi’s don’t want time tables and this is right after the Iraqi’s ask for a time table. I’m sure glad it’s not just the American people he ignores. Bush talks about the progress being made in Iraq yet flies in to the country in total secrecy meets briefly and flies out before anyone realizes he was there. Seems to me that even with 130,000 us troops and anywhere from 10,000 – 240,000 Iraqi troops (depends on who you read) that there just might be a major security problem in a city that wrong wingers are saying is safer than Washington DC. Where is the progress, and remind me exactly what the plan is again?
June 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pm“But embracing defeat is a risky political strategy”
We embaced defeat the day it was realized that no WMD were to be found in Iraq. An unjustifiable war is unwinnable and the justification went up in smoke and mirrors a long time ago.
Dems got to hammer that into the thick skulls of the warmongers.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pmWhy is the left so invested in our defeat in Iraq? In fact, why are they so concerned about defeating Bush no matter what the cost? Here’s a perfect example, earlier this year Feingold and others tried to censure Bush for his NSA program while it was just revealed that the program essentially prevented a New York subway attack in 2004. In fact, D. Feinstein acknowledged that fact on one of the weekend talk shows. I believe that voters will remember these actions come November. Dems need to get their act together and unplug from the left if they ever have any hope of winning again.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pmMark
this is the strategy.
Torture, kill and murder to keep the land unstable while keeping America and Americans compliant with fear and the distant promise of cheap oil. The strategy is not to win, it is to win for the Republicans, who have more then demonstrated a lack of any morality or personal responsibility with their repeated mantra of “Bill Clinton” and “”Loony Left.” Meanwhile, so long as the people are lulled by the frequent fact that it is the “libruls” who are trying to defend their rights, turn the constitution into a “goddamn piece of paper.”
The strategy is to sponsor people like Ann Coulter to keep up the hate, so that nobody ever thinks clearly about what is going on. The strategy is to keep the bards silent while the treasury gets looted. The aim is not an American victory, its a Republican one. It is not the people of America who the Republicans serve, but multinational corporate interests. This is what K Street was all about, and that scandal isn’t over yet.
And you know what? Its working.
June 19th, 2006 at 2:50 pmComment by milbog
June 19th, 2006 at 2:52 pmWhat left are you talking about? Marxists? Anarchists? Christian Democrats? So far, the only ones I know want a defeat in Iraq are Iraqi insurgency and, believe me, nobody is as far from the left as they are.
You really need to find a good book about economical and political ideology.
Dyan is my name you asshole (I do know how to spell that). But let’s get back to the question, still no answers huh?
June 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pm#49 Bruce, I kind of hope that defeatists such as MA can coherently express the strategy. I’ll bet they can list the talking points which really only lay out goals with little strategy behind them.
Funny story, last night my brother in law was defiling my household with his right wing filth. He actually thinks that speaking out against Bush in any manner is speaking out against America. I reminded him that Bush is not America and got this robot malfunction look that he was not comprehending what I just said. Anyhow the subject of eroding civil rights came up and I mentioned the presidents statement about AlQueda hating our freedoms (which he agreed with 100%) and therefore by definition anyone who limits our rights and freedoms is helping Al Queda, which he did not agree with. In times like these you have to limit freedoms was his response and then he wanted to know what freedoms I was talking about. I mentioned freedom of the press and freedom of political expression. The first words out of his mouth were “well, under president Clinton…” I laughed in his face and said he needed a new boogie man. He said what do you mean and I answered that every time logic escapes a right-winger they tote out Clintons name. I got the same blank does not compute look, so I left the room.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:08 pmRe “Why is the left so invested in our defeat in Iraq?” Who says we are – name one “leftist” who says that, not a right-winger offering to speak “for”/about us. I, for one, want us to pursue policies that can be measurably successful and at a measurable, acceptable cost. To me, the justification for the Iraq War has never met the bill in this regard. Further, many of us hypothesize that the Iraq insurgency has increased because of American military/occupation presence in Iraq. A strategic deployment to our bases outside of Iraq will give the insurgency the challenge to “put up or shut up” by stopping the violence as we will not be an excuse. Of course, they may find some other excuse and we can then send our troops back in. But WE should take a more strategic, dare-I-say “scientific” approach.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:10 pmThe responses from Milbog, and mighty aphrodite, show why this country cannot have an honest debate obout the future of US miltary intervention in Iraq. The Bush admin and thier apologists, stiffle any debate by resorting to rhetoric.
We will not be able to effectively stabilize Iraq, until we can have an honest debate about what is transpiring on the ground. Yes the insurgency my be close to being done in Iraq, but Al Qaeda is not done, nor is the insurgency all of the violence in Iraq.
June 19th, 2006 at 3:34 pmOur attack on Iraq was wrong, period. If we left Iraq right now, we would be wrong again, period. I really can’t see how leaving iraq right now would serve us or the Iraqi government any good. Turning Iraq over to Terrorists would be lethal for us in the future. Staying in Iraq and working with their new government seems to be the best choice, but that is obvious.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pmWow! How fast can a dervish on crack spin? Ask Mighty Aphro!
She insists calumny and mendacity is truth!
She claims that her over turned arguments cannot be refuted!
Next she’ll be claiming that up is down and day is nIght!
June 19th, 2006 at 5:12 pmYou need to learn to think outside the box. In this case, think outside the oil barrel.
June 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pmWasn’t it Nixon who turned over Saigon to the Commies and Reagan who cut and ran from Beirut ?
June 19th, 2006 at 5:40 pmJerad, most leftwingers actually agree with you, America can’t just leave Iraq after smashing it, the question isn’t “Does America stay in Iraq or does America leave?” Its how does America reach the point where it can leave? How does America go about stabilising Iraq, in the most economically viable manner, and then get out of there?
How does America put leaving Iraq on the horizon? So far the “Stay the course” mob has not shown that they have a strategy for doing this. All they have shown is that they are really good at making enemies out of neutrals. Gitmo, you how if I was an insurgent I would treat that sort of shit? I would go to the US and accuse the mildly pro-American guys in my village of being insurgents against America. The house get searched, invariably a gun gets found (in a civil war, you want to protect your family) and they get carted off to Gitmo, meanwhile a friend of mine goes around saying that this is what America is doing to all Arabs. Propoganda win, those guys gets taken out of circulation, and plus the US is willing to pay me for it.
We want an end-game, a point at which America can leave, rather then a growing insurgency against America and anybody associated with it. To do this, you need to capture the hearts of the people, and to do that you need to change direction. You need to show real empathy, to refresh your soldiers more often so that they don’t end up going bezerk and killing whole families, you need to have the soldiers understand how they would feel if America had been invaded by Iraq. You also need them to understand, that no dictator however vile, has zero in the way of a support base.
And in America, you need to lead by example, by open debate and less demonisation. People aren’t going to listen to you if you call them rag-heads. They aren’t going to listen to you about the seperation of Church and state, when your own state is being run by people bent on getting rid of it. They aren’t going to follow what you say, they are going to follow what you do, so you had better do good. America for years, has done good, and it needs to understand the power of doing good before it loses what little remains of its reputation for doing good.
June 20th, 2006 at 6:50 amI’m still waiting for Mighty Aphrodite or any other supporter of the Iraq War to define “victory” in measurable terms. And I don’t mean the slogans “Stay the course” or “when they stand up, we stand down”. Exactly when do we leave, if ever, in your policy?
June 20th, 2006 at 8:10 am#64 – Don’t hold your breath. Mighty Aphro and her ilk refuse to define “victory” because they are incapable of defining themselves, mush less something tangible.
Victory would be “As we successfully train 10,000 Iraqi’s and they’ve been actively supporting security for 3 months, then 10,000 US soldiers get sent home. (Or back to Afghanistan where Pres. Bush screwed up yet again.)â€
You’re never going to get any definition of “victory†out of the Republicans in power, because then they’d have to hold themselves accountable to their own statements. As long as they can claim “victory is what we claim it to be, not anything that can be measured†then they could crap in a hat and wear it around and say “See! We’re winning!â€
It’s just so sad that the elected Republican officials obviously hate our American soldiers so much they would rather the soldiers get killed for oil and permanent bases rather than set any definable standards for themselves.
June 20th, 2006 at 8:48 am#65 Democrat Soldier I agree not to hold my breath – I like O2! I do think we should hold this administration and its supporters accountable. If demanding a definition for “victory” puts heat on them, then I say “bring it on!” And if THEY refuse to make the definition, progressives should and call for action based on that definition. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0619-22.htm
June 20th, 2006 at 9:11 am#68 MA Did you vote for Kerry and his “open mind” or did you throw his ability to change his mind on the scrap-heap of “flip-flopper”? Why did you have bring in the term “zealots for the Church of the Almighty Liberal”?
June 20th, 2006 at 4:11 pm