Zakaria: ‘The war has largely ended.’
Zakaria: ‘The war has largely ended.’
In his latest column, Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria claims:
[E]vents on the ground have changed dramatically, and their rhetoric feels increasingly stale. They’re fighting the Iraq War all right, but it’s the wrong one.
The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to “ending the war” and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
Zakaria adds, “John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge.” In response, Matt Yglesias writes: “Ah, those sad, sad, Democrats. So unaware that the war’s over. The dude who killed at least fourteen and wounded seventeen in Tikrit must, like the Democrats, have been wearing partisan blinders when he failed to acknowledge the surge’s success in bringing the war to an end.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
‘The war has largely ended.’
FINE! Time to go home! NOW!
Every candidate is committed to “ending the war†and bringing our troops back home.
I think the republiscum are committed to keeping the war going…
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pmPathological liar or delusional, take your pick. I vote for a lot of both.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pmMatt Yglesias writes: “Ah, those sad, sad, Democrats. So unaware that the war’s over………”
Have you informed your precious , happy deity Chimpy yet , nitwit ?
Better yet , if it’s “over” , how come Gen Betrayus claims he needs 6 more months before even commenting on the mere success level of the “surge” ?
Moron……..
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 pmWell then, since the war’s over with, I guess it’s time to leave.
Also, I didn’t know that non-existent wars would kill 50+ troops over a two month span, but OK.
“The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.”
Doesn’t that mean that if we leave, the war would restart, and if so, how does that constitute the war being over?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm#3 – I’m quite sure that Matt Yglesias was being sarcastic…
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pmWell if the war is ended then it’s because at least 50% of the Iraqi population has either been killed or left the country.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm#3 Yglesias is solidly progressive and clearly the remark was sarcasm.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm#3 But we appreciate your passion.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 pmIt must be time to bring the troops home so the Democrats are still on message. Thought the war in Iraq was part of the War on Terror so does this mean that we won the war on terror?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pmFrom Wiki:
Matthew Yglesias (born May 18, 1981) is a popular American political blogger and a prominent voice in the liberal blogosphere.
Definitely sarcasm, MCM
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm“The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.”
Hmmm. Lets see, the war is over because our troops are there fighting a war.
Sounds like another “Mission Accomplished*” to me.
*actual mission accomplishment not required.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm#3 – I’m quite sure that Matt Yglesias was being sarcastic…
Comment by fleetadmiralj — January 22, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
Sorry , I thought I had copied and pasted Fareed Zakaria’s nonsense into my post and wanted to mock him…….Mea Culpa.
BTW
Anyone catch Zakaria the other evening on Bill Maher’s show ?
Funny how he didn’t make any comment resembling his inspid piss above…….
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:08 pmFrom Wiki:
Matthew Yglesias (born May 18, 1981) is a popular American political blogger and a prominent voice in the liberal blogosphere.
Definitely sarcasm, MCM
Comment by Merlin — January 22, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Duly noted above ………My entire post went haywire ; that’ll teach me to run Ad*Aware the same time I try to post………
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pmYou know, TP, you really ought to read more than the first paragraph of Zakaria’s column. The characterization of what he wrote is far different from what I just finished reading. He isn’t saying anything that far out of line with what we read here every day: the “war” is over and we’re in the middle of an occupation.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Good, then Congress will not have to allocate all the money that Bush has requested for 2008—but wait–didn’t Bush say recently that he is not bringing some troops home after all? Doesn’t sound like these people are on the same page.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pmNo problem. Just thought I’d clear up any misunderstanding early.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm‘The war has largely ended.’
oh… well then, next stop:
Timeline of Iran’s nuclear program
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:10 pmReuters – 2 hours ago
(Reuters) – World powers agreed on Tuesday on the contents of a new draft sanctions resolution against Iran that European countries will present to the UN Security Council in the coming weeks, Germany’s foreign minister said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL227722320080122
[E]vents on the ground have changed dramatically, and their rhetoric feels increasingly stale. They’re fighting the Iraq War all right, but it’s the wrong one.
The Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to “ending the war†and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
This is the new talking point, and its utter insanity. (Meaning completely out of touch with reality.) BushCo is desperately trying to steal the Democrat’s strength about the reality in Iraq. The minor drawdown is being trumpeted, etc. The election is nearing and they know they are screwed. Its desperation time. The lies and distortions will get more frequent as we near November. Even the trolls here are trumpeting that we have “won” because of the brilliant surge.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:13 pmI think it’s wonderful that Newsweek has a progressive hiring program which doesn’t require actual journalistic talent for an individual to become their most highly visible reporter.
I’m sure that the war must be over because Zakaria has recently spent 3 months in the country. He couldn’t possibly be simply passing on chatter that he’s heard from the “important people”, could he? After all, Newsweek is an important magazine with journalistic standards, not merely an outlet for propaganda manned by useful idiots, right?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmThe Democrats are having the hardest time with the new reality. Every candidate is committed to “ending the war†and bringing our troops back home. The trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
Is it just me , or is the above statement/thought contradictory and insane ?
How can our troops be in the middle of a war if it’s over ?
And how does that present any type of ‘trouble’ in bringing them home ?
And who on the GOP side has suggested bringing the troops home ?
This what I was trying (unsuccessfully) , to point out earlier……
What in the hell is Zakaria talking about ?
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmI suppose that as soon as we extricate our troops from the “middle of it”, the war will cease to be over?
Let’s try it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmI’m sure that the loved ones, of next month’s dead, will be greatly relieved the “war is over”.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pmWhen you occupy Muslim lands, the “war” is never over until the occupation is over.
Read some history, learn something better men than us have learned the hard way.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pmzakaria lost his soul a long time ago.. he is now more interested in climbing up the DC pundit-ladder…..seeking fame and stardom as an objective “analyst”….
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmComment by gummitch — January 22, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
I respect your views and always read them here. I usually agree with your take on things. Not in this instance, however. I went and read the article and also his profile on Wiki. I am not that familiar with him.
He is credited with being a centrist. If he is representative of the center, It sure is one confused place to be. The article is not clearly written and would take several readings to really get the gist of where he is truly coming from. His view is far from Progressive and much like the one O. Bigfoot has been pushing here. He is essentially pro “war” just not like Bush has done it. He is pro globalization and in favor of creating democracies around the world, except not the way BushCo is doing it.
In short he sounds much like a DLC person. I think TP is right to present his writing the way they have. He is not someone that I agree with on a philosophical or ideological level.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmI said it before, Fareed Zakaria is one of the biggest ass lickers around. He doesn’t know what he believes until the political winds blow.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmThere’s classic Republican logic for you: the war is over, because our troops are fighting it.
Huh…???
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmgood call, gummitch @ 5:09 pm
i am guilty of the same offense, having posted a story i read minutes earlier when i read this headline, only…
i do wonder how accurate and contextual that reuters timeline is…
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm…
In short he sounds much like a DLC person. I think TP is right to present his writing the way they have. He is not someone that I agree with on a philosophical or ideological level.
Comment by Merlin — January 22, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
I don’t disagree with your assessment of Zakaria, and I’d be surprised to see anyone progressive writing for Newsweek, but I’ve found him to be well-informed in the past.
But the first paragraph I quoted above . . . is there really anything in that analysis that you disagree with? Or even with the statement that “the war has ended.” We all know the war has ended and that was we’re observing is an occupation; do you disagree with his statement that we are “policing a civil war”?
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 pmMr. Zakaria writes:
“We should call an international conference on Iraq and get the support of other countries—crucially Iraq’s neighbors—for this new mission. There should then be a joint international push to get the Iraqis to make the kinds of political deals that will turn the ceasefires into lasting peace.”
IF the Iraqi’s are CAPABLE of making these kinds of political deals, then maybe a DATE CERTAIN for TOTAL WITHDRAWAL of American troops will help concentrate their minds.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 pmTechnically, it wasn’t a war, and technically it ended anyway when George stood on the USS Lincoln and declared major combat operations ended, mission accomplished.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm… BushCo is desperately trying to steal the Democrat’s strength about the reality in Iraq. …
Comment by Merlin — January 22, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
i found this LAST last weekend:
Sorry, Barack, You’ve Lost Iraq.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:05 pmBush’s efforts to negotiate a long-term U.S-Iraq pact may remove troops as an ‘08 election issue for Obama, Clinton.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/91651
hmmm – wonder if the Army knows the war is over – my son is scheduled to go to Iraq in March…..SUPPORT THE TROOPS – BRING THEM HOME NOW!!!!
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:14 pmThe trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
So the war will be over as long as our troops stay there.
Whaaa? DoubleSpeak at its finest.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pmZakaria adds, “John McCain deserves credit for supporting the surge.â€
Hmmm… Maybe he is further “right” than I thought when I said he sounded like a DLC person. This comment sounds like he is a BushCo enabler. He apparently supports the idea of the surge and is seeing the events in Iraq through BushCo colored glasses.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pmThanks for posting the background on Fareed’s column, gum. The pull quote that TP featured didn’t sound like him.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm‘The war has largely ended.’
Except for all the bombing and killing and all, other than that it is ended.
Good, let’s go home then.
Buck Fush
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pmmy son is scheduled to go to Iraq in March
Comment by gmpanek — January 22, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
I’m sorry. If he goes I hope he returns safely. My best of luck to him, and to you and his mom as well.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 pmI don’t think the Iraqis will begin to solve their differences until we leave. The notion that our existing troop level (or more) is required indefinitely to maintain the occupation and peace is mistaken.
If most Iraqis want us out, let them sort out what sort of government they want.
The real trick will be keeping the neighbors at bay whilst Iraq determines its own destiny.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pmTime to largely leave – immediatly!
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — January 22, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
The pull quote that TP featured didn’t sound like him.
From his profile on Wiki it fits him like a glove.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:33 pmRove was right. They simply create a new reality while their foes are floundering around trying to explain the previously created reality.
-GSD
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pmI still have my issues of Newsweek from 2002 when Fareed was a strong supporter of the war. He is a hack who occassionally goes on the Daily Show and speaks the truth. Then goes back to Newsweek and collects his big check selling America on the latest boogey man.
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 pm‘ the latest of a series of deadly attacks fast chipping away at the notion of a calmer Iraq. The bombing also gave credence to repeated assertions by the US military that the fight against Al-Qaeda in not over yet. Significantly, Monday’s bombing was the third in as many days to take place in Sunni areas thought to be have been largely rid of Al-Qaeda militants.’
From Juan Cole.
-GSD
January 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm#24: “He is pro globalization and in favor of creating democracies around the world”
Please explain where you’re getting that? I don’t see anything in his article that supports that view.
Specifically: “But the notion, articulated by many Republicans, that if we just stay the course a bit longer we will achieve “victory” is loopy. Iraq is seen—and will be for years—by the rest of the Middle East as a cautionary tale and not a model.”
and: “Our initial goals in Iraq—WMD, democratic transformation—are impossible”
I find his article well-reasoned and sound. Violence has dropped to very low levels. It still exists (note he said LARGELY over), but it’s low enough that it’s difficult to claim that we’re waging a “war”. We’re certainly maintaining an enormous, tenuous occupation, and need to be very careful with our withdrawl so as to maintain the tentative alliances and cease-fires that currently exist. What’s so unreasonable about that?
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 pmWhen a nation is dropping 40,000 pounds of bombs at a time on another nation that is hardly peaceful.
It is a matter of dumbing down reason.
Yes, compared to the all out civil war that was going on last year, which at the time they were denying was all out civil war, things are indeed calmer. Yet they now point to the terrible violence that they were pooh-poohing last year and saying see! Things are so much better!
It is just stacking lies on top of lies.
Mission Accomplished 2.0.
-GSD
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pmI find his article well-reasoned and sound. Violence has dropped to very low levels. It still exists (note he said LARGELY over), but it’s low enough that it’s difficult to claim that we’re waging a “warâ€. We’re certainly maintaining an enormous, tenuous occupation, and need to be very careful with our withdrawl so as to maintain the tentative alliances and cease-fires that currently exist. What’s so unreasonable about that?
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Of course it’s unreasonable. We shouldn’t be in their country; they can sort things out for themselves. And Bush and Cheney should be facing war crime charges.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 pmSure, the war is over, Zakaria. Sure.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why Petrayus is saying we are in for another six months of
peacewar?Its been alot of Freidmans and a whole lot of deaths since the first “only six months” promise out of this Administration.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:22 pmWe shouldn’t be in their country; they can sort things out for themselves.
Totally agree that we shouldn’t be there in the first place, but the fact remains that we’re there. Pulling out as quickly as possible might be good for our troops and our pocketbooks, but if it we pull out clumsily, and it fractures the truces that we’ve worked to set up, isn’t that a bit irresponsible?
There’s a lot of talk around here about all the innocent Iraqis that have died due to our entering Iraq, but there seems to be little compassion for all those that might die because of a mismanaged extraction.
I’m all for getting out, and as soon as we can responsibly do so. The war has been mismanaged plenty, and both our military and the Iraqi people have been hurt by it. I’d like to see the extraction of our troops to be actually done skillfully, taking into account the ramifications of our exit, rather leaving a gaping power vacuum that shatters the numerous cease-fires and truces that currently exist.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:24 pmevilcornbread: “I’d like to see the extraction of our troops to be actually done skillfully, taking into account the ramifications of our exit, rather leaving a gaping power vacuum that shatters the numerous cease-fires and truces that currently exist.”
OK, then I take it you’re supporting one of the three Democratic frontrunners for President. Each one wants a careful, reasonable withdrawl of troops so that the Iraqi government can take over and do the job it’s supposed to do. McCain, by contrast, has clearly stated he doesn’t mind if we’re there for 50 to 100 years. So, of course, you couldn’t be supporting McCain, right?
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 pmPlease explain where you’re getting that? I don’t see anything in his article that supports that view.
These quotes come from Wiki, not the article.
Zakaria is an advocate of free markets, both at home and abroad. He believes that America should embrace globalization and free trade.
He argued for a generational effort to create more open and dynamic societies in the Arab world, thereby helping “Islam enter the modern world”.
he has been critical of the manner in which the Bush administration has pushed its democracy agenda forward, relying on elections in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon as the solution to those countries’ problems and minimizing the building of the institutions of law, governance, and liberty.
There is a great deal of stuff in his bio that I disagree with. As I mentioned above, and anyone who has read my posts in the past knows, DLC like positions and using triangulation when stating your position is not my cup of tea. Wiki lays it out for anyone who cares to see it.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 pm“He argued for a generational effort to create more open and dynamic societies in the Arab world, thereby helping “Islam enter the modern worldâ€.”
Hey, how’s that workin’ out?
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:35 pmOK, then I take it you’re supporting one of the three Democratic frontrunners for President. Each one wants a careful, reasonable withdrawl of troops so that the Iraqi government can take over and do the job it’s supposed to do.
Yep, at this point I’m supporting Obama, but I’ll happily vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination.
#51: Okay, the difference I see is that you claim he is essentially “pro war”, and that he supports “creating democracies” around the world. I don’t see anything in those wiki quotes that supports those claims. He’s supportive of encouraging democracies, but that’s very different from the militaristic creation of them that you seem to be suggesting.
Hell, I’m generally supportive of encouraging democracies, too. I’d wager most people are.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm#52: Hey, how’s that workin’ out?
Reasonably well in Turkey, and there were gains being made in Iran until Bush polarized them with the Iraq war and all that “axis of evil” rhetoric.
It’s a long-term, diplomatic approach — isn’t that what most of us here favor?
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:39 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 22, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Hey, how’s that workin’ out?
Well, if you listen to the corporate MSM and the BushCo warmongers, “Just Grate”. And it just grates the hell out of me.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 pmCornbread: “It’s a long-term, diplomatic approach — isn’t that what most of us here favor?”
Of course I agree with you that diplomacy is what we want. The question is does encouraging an entrenched dictatorial power to become more democratic work? I don’t think it does. What we do is encourage dictatorial powers by trading with them and further enriching them. “Free trade” and “globalization” actually serve to entrench the power because it is essentially a corporate game and corporations don’t give a damn about democracy – in fact, I would argue that corporations are inherently undemocratic in nature and that true democratic government challenges their power.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 pmOnly reporting about war ended indeed on US televisions screens,newspapers and magazines…but the real war in Iraq still going on. Otherwise ,our troops will be home by now if Zakaria is correct.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:55 pmTotally agree that we shouldn’t be there in the first place, but the fact remains that we’re there. Pulling out as quickly as possible might be good for our troops and our pocketbooks, but if it we pull out clumsily, and it fractures the truces that we’ve worked to set up, isn’t that a bit irresponsible?
If that’s the direction the Iraqis wanna go, so be it. They’re not babies; they’re grown folk.
There’s a lot of talk around here about all the innocent Iraqis that have died due to our entering Iraq, but there seems to be little compassion for all those that might die because of a mismanaged extraction.
If that’s the direction the Iraqis wanna go, so be it. They’re not babies; they’re grown folk.
I’m all for getting out, and as soon as we can responsibly do so. The war has been mismanaged plenty, and both our military and the Iraqi people have been hurt by it. I’d like to see the extraction of our troops to be actually done skillfully, taking into account the ramifications of our exit, rather leaving a gaping power vacuum that shatters the numerous cease-fires and truces that currently exist.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
If that’s the direction the Iraqis wanna go, so be it. They’re not babies; they’re grown folk.
January 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm#51: Okay, the difference I see is that you claim he is essentially “pro warâ€, and that he supports “creating democracies†around the world. I don’t see anything in those wiki quotes that supports those claims. He’s supportive of encouraging democracies, but that’s very different from the militaristic creation of them that you seem to be suggesting.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
How do you know what he thinks? He seems to be supporting this imperialistic endeavor.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pmIt’s a long-term, diplomatic approach — isn’t that what most of us here favor?
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
When they want to move into the “modern world”, they will. It’s up to them, not us (unless you support democratization at the barrel of a gun).
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm#53 Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
From Wiki:
For this reason, he has been critical of the manner in which the Bush administration has pushed its democracy agenda forward, relying on elections in Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, and Lebanon as the solution to those countries’ problems and minimizing the building of the institutions of law, governance, and liberty.
He is “critical of the manner.” This means that he supports the idea of creating democracies where they don’t exist. He just wants it done in a different manner than BushCo is doing it.
We have no right to interfere in another countries internal affairs. Pushing democracy in Muslim countries, which he supports, I believe, is a prescription for blowback. I am against meddling in other countries affairs. And that is where we differ, probably, as you state:
Hell, I’m generally supportive of encouraging democracies, too. I’d wager most people are.
From my reading of Wiki, I believe he is way more than “encouraging.” (Your milage may vary.)
And BTW, “I’d wager most people are.” has no relevance. If true, it only means you are in the majority. And remember, 80% of the people backed Bush in 2003. That certainly did not make them right.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — January 22, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
I would argue that corporations are inherently undemocratic in nature and that true democratic government challenges their power.
Spot on Col. Jack. The fact that they want free reign and zero regulation shows that anti democracy.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm#60 Comment by Nat — January 22, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
When they want to move into the “modern worldâ€, they will. It’s up to them, not us (unless you support democratization at the barrel of a gun).
Well said Nat! The perfect response.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm#58: The Iraqi people (like most people) are short-sighted and don’t necessarily see the big picture. That’s not to say that we ignore their wishes, but pulling every single troop out tomorrow doesn’t suddenly become the right thing to do if the majority of Iraqis say they want it.
And, as #61 points out, popular opinion isn’t always right, whether it’s ours or the Iraqis.
#60: “When they want to move into the “modern worldâ€, they will. It’s up to them, not us (unless you support democratization at the barrel of a gun).”
Obviously there’s some middle ground. We can be encouraging without being militaristic. As an example, Bush’s posturing against Iran certainly HURT the growth of Democracy in that country.
#61: We have no right to interfere in another countries internal affairs.
Sure we do — or do you suggest that we pull all foreign aid? A purely isolationist stance isn’t healthy or realistic. We need to be involved to some degree. Clearly not to the “pre-emptive war” level, but it’s clearly not true that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries affairs either.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:30 pmThe trouble is, the war has largely ended, and precisely because our troops are in the middle of it.
Once again, we see the the bizarre mind set that allows Bush supporters to claim success while insisting that, precisely because of it, US troops must occupy Iraq indefinitely.
Last time I checked, once a war -any war- ends, troops are no longer needed “in the middle of it”, because there is no more “middle” anywhere.
Dissecting all the babble coming out of the flytraps of these Bush mouth-breathing Bush supporters is a full time job… ssheeshh…
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:51 pmbut it’s clearly not true that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries affairs either.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
How does foreign aid equate interfering in other countries’ affairs? And where is the line drawn? killing thousands in air strikes and displacing millions seems to be a bit harsh for the term “interfering in other countries’ affairs”, don’t you think? War crimes are a rather extreme form of foreign aid, don’t you think? And if the majority of Iraqi’s want American troops out tomorrow, then we should leave tomorrow. We invaded illegally, and we are there illegally. anything else is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 pmThe war ends when people stop dying. In the first 22 days of January, 27 American soldiers and countless Iraqis have died. According to gummitch (comment 14), Zakaria’s point is that the war ended and we’re in the middle of an occupation. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Call it what you will, but when a country invades another, the battles are ongoing (air bombing and ground fighting) and and people continue to die, it looks like war to me.
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:59 pmSure we do — or do you suggest that we pull all foreign aid?
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
No, the US does not have the right to interfere in another country’s internal affairs, as it violates the principle of national sovereignty. Claiming so also contradicts American pretenses of “spreading” democracy in the world.
Foreign aid is not necessarily interference, although it can be used towards that goal.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 pmComment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Sure we do — or do you suggest that we pull all foreign aid? A purely isolationist stance isn’t healthy or realistic. We need to be involved to some degree. Clearly not to the “pre-emptive war†level, but it’s clearly not true that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries affairs either.
No we don’t.
Foreign aid, used as it is, and has been, is a manipulative tool used by the one up nation to get its “legal” foot in their door. There is always a price to pay, because the “aid” is not given freely and for truly benevolent reasons. There is always a selfish reason lurking behind foreign aid. In my view, the Coalition of the Coerced… er Willing had the “Aid” card pulled on them in order to get them to join the invasion.
It is my view that foreign aid be given totally free and not used, as you imply, in order to influence the country in any way. Toward democracy or anything else. If we can’t do that then we should not give the aid at all.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 pmAnd if the majority of Iraqi’s want American troops out tomorrow, then we should leave tomorrow.
Even if (hypothetically, I’m just making a point here), we knew that leaving tomorrow would likely result in a civil war that would leave thousands more Iraqis dead? I just don’t see things being that cut-and-dried.
Foreign aid is not necessarily interference, although it can be used towards that goal.
Depends on your definition of “interference”. Foreign aid clearly influences other countries. We live in a global community, and we need to be a part of it. Like I said, illegal “pre-emptive war” is way way out of line, but we can’t revert to being completely isolationist in response.
It is my view that foreign aid be given totally free and not used, as you imply, in order to influence the country in any way. Toward democracy or anything else. If we can’t do that then we should not give the aid at all.
Well that sounds nice, but it’s not realistic IMO. Money is power. It’s going to influence behavior, whether we want it to or not.
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pmWell that sounds nice, but it’s not realistic IMO. Money is power. It’s going to influence behavior, whether we want it to or not.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Is that a reason for us to use it that way? A justification?
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:51 pmDepends on your definition of “interferenceâ€. Foreign aid clearly influences other countries. We live in a global community, and we need to be a part of it.
Sounds like you are playing Clinton’s game of “what is, is.” It sounds like a way of justifying selfish actions by dressing them up in pretty words. Better to be flat out open and say, “look, we will buy your “fill in the blank” (secrecy, vote in the UN, etc.) by giving you this amount of money.
Sorry, but this being sneaky and selfish Aid “gift” while trying to appear like Mother Theresa is simply crap. Call it “politics” or what ever name you want. It still stinks. Would you accept this kind of attitude from your kids?
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:00 pmI’m not saying be sneaky about it, I’m just saying it’s impossible to give millions of dollars to a country without influencing their behavior, whether we want to or not.
I mean, they’re going to be wary of doing things that are counter to our positions, at the very least, for fear that we’d reduce aid.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pmEven if (hypothetically, I’m just making a point here), we knew that leaving tomorrow would likely result in a civil war that would leave thousands more Iraqis dead? I just don’t see things being that cut-and-dried.
Bush, Bremer, and Powell have all said that if the Iraqis ask us to leave, then we leave. Unconditional. Not one whimper about the generals making that decision…not one worry about Iraq falling into the hands of the terrorists and the Middle East collapsing.
As one of them said, “We aren’t going to stay where we are not wanted” or something like that.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm#58: The Iraqi people (like most people) are short-sighted and don’t necessarily see the big picture. That’s not to say that we ignore their wishes, but pulling every single troop out tomorrow doesn’t suddenly become the right thing to do if the majority of Iraqis say they want it.
First of all, there’s no way in hell all the troops can be pulled out tomorrow. We’re probably looking at a six month timetable.
Again, the Iraqis are grown folk; they’re not babies.
Obviously there’s some middle ground. We can be encouraging without being militaristic. As an example, Bush’s posturing against Iran certainly HURT the growth of Democracy in that country.
There’s no middle ground. When they want democracy, they’ll achieve it.
Sure we do — or do you suggest that we pull all foreign aid?
We don’t have a right. No stipulations were placed on that foreign aid.
A purely isolationist stance isn’t healthy or realistic. We need to be involved to some degree.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Once they’re ready for democracy [on their own], they’ll look to us or better yet Europe.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 pmEven if (hypothetically, I’m just making a point here), we knew that leaving tomorrow would likely result in a civil war that would leave thousands more Iraqis dead? I just don’t see things being that cut-and-dried.
If that’s the path they choose, so be it.
Well that sounds nice, but it’s not realistic IMO. Money is power. It’s going to influence behavior, whether we want it to or not.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
There is no stipulation on the foreign aid so the countries can do whatever they want. If they want to turn away from us, that’s fine with me. Likewise if they align themselves with us, that’s fine with me.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pmComment by Nat — January 22, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Nat, excellent points. Bush likes to compare Iraq’s quest for democracy to our own in this country’s infancy. The difference is, we did it on our own. We didn’t have another army or another country holding our hands as we walked towards that goal. Sure, we had outside forces trying to stop us, but those who assisted us didn’t hang around for McCain’s 100 years.
If the Iraqis want freedom and democracy as bad as Bush says they do, then they will fight for it. But as long as we are there doing it for them, why should they? How many years and how many times have we been told by this administration that the Iraqi army will be taking over security for their own country? Well?
And as for the terrorists wanting to take away our freedoms…I say bullsh*t. First of all, just what freedoms would they like to take from me? Killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is a terrible thing, but it does not take away our freedoms. If they wanted to do that, then they surely wouldn’t be in Iraq; there would be an overwhelming invasion of our borders and we’d be fighting them in our streets.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 pmFirst of all, there’s no way in hell all the troops can be pulled out tomorrow.
Well you’re just addressing a specific and ignoring my point. If we knew that there would be damages to pulling out on a specific timetable, I don’t believe it would be responsible to pull out on that timetable even if Iraqi polls indicated they wanted it.
There’s no middle ground. When they want democracy, they’ll achieve it.
Asserting that there’s no middle ground is just absurd. Of course there is. Yes, if countries want democracy their citizens will work towards it, but how we treat other countries affects their positions. If we’re hostile (like to Iran), it can hurt the development of democracy. If we make it known that democracies with good human rights records get better trade agreements with us, then that will encourage governments to put more power in the hands of the people.
There is no stipulation on the foreign aid so the countries can do whatever they want. If they want to turn away from us, that’s fine with me. Likewise if they align themselves with us, that’s fine with me.
Right, there are (sometimes) no overt stipulations, but there’s always implied ones. Do you really think we’d keep sending aid to a country that, for example, started publicly supporting Al Qaeda? Would that really be okay with you?
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 pmWell you’re just addressing a specific and ignoring my point. If we knew that there would be damages to pulling out on a specific timetable, I don’t believe it would be responsible to pull out on that timetable even if Iraqi polls indicated they wanted it.
I’ve answered it several times in different variations:
If that’s the direction the Iraqis wanna go, so be it. They’re not babies; they’re grown folk.
Asserting that there’s no middle ground is just absurd. Of course there is. Yes, if countries want democracy their citizens will work towards it, but how we treat other countries affects their positions. If we’re hostile (like to Iran), it can hurt the development of democracy.
There’s no middle ground. When they’re ready for democracy, they’ll achieve it. And Iran is already a quasi democracy.
If we make it known that democracies with good human rights records get better trade agreements with us, then that will encourage governments to put more power in the hands of the people.
They already know this.
Right, there are (sometimes) no overt stipulations, but there’s always implied ones.
There’s no stipulation. It’s like giving alms (which is one of tenets of Islam).
Do you really think we’d keep sending aid to a country that, for example, started publicly supporting Al Qaeda?
Name a country that we give aid to that openly supports Al Qaeda?
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pmDepends on your definition of “interferenceâ€. Foreign aid clearly influences other countries.
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
One thing is influence and another interference or intervention. The distinction is clear, even for you, or you wouldn’t have to move the goal posts like you just did.
We live in a global community, and we need to be a part of it. Like I said, illegal “pre-emptive war†is way way out of line, but we can’t revert to being completely isolationist in response.
I see. There are only two choices: Foreign aid & overt interference in other countries’ internal affairs, or complete isolationism.
There is no respecting another nation’s sovereignty. And this is your version of “participation” in a global community.
I believe this mind set is what led to Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, to name a few.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:12 pmComment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Do you really think we’d keep sending aid to a country that, for example, started publicly supporting Al Qaeda? Would that really be okay with you?
This implies that the money isn’t really Aid. It is being used primarily for those “implied” reasons you mentioned. Aid is Aid. Period. and should be given free of implication. Then it is given with understanding, caring, empathy and love. You assume that Aid should have an implied use, and are arguing from that philosophy.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 pmWould that really be okay with you?
Comment by EvilCornbread — January 22, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
If your help comes with strings attached, better not give any help at all.
What you are suggesting is that other countries bow to the will of the people of the USA. Any people who dares defy those exceptional Americans, will find itself at the receiving end of America’s righteous wrath.
So much for spreading democracy around the world.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm#80 Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 22, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
I believe this mind set is what led to Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and Iraq, to name a few.
My thoughts exactly, except you gave them better voice than I did.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 pmWhat you are suggesting is that other countries bow to the will of the people of the USA. Any people who dares defy those exceptional Americans, will find itself at the receiving end of America’s righteous wrath.
And we choose which country we give foreign aid to. The Al Qaeda thing was a diversion tactic on his part.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:26 pmThe Al Qaeda thing was a diversion tactic on his part.
Comment by Nat — January 22, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
The mention of AlQaeda had the clear purpose of inciting an emotional response: “Oh no, no way!”
But you can replace it with whatever issue you happen to disagree with, and the fallacy is obvious.
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 pmComment by Merlin — January 22, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
Hey, you know what they say about great minds ;-)
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 pmTalk about red herrings! Al Qaeda funders and American aid? Can you say saudi Arabia? Do you not know who created both Saddam and Osama? I don’t know where evilcornbread is living, but it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near this planet.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 am