The Democratic House vs. the War
Brian Doherty | March 9, 2007, 9:21am
House Democrats come out with toughest talk yet on winding down in Iraq:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she will include a deadline for troop withdrawal by August 2008 — or sooner, if Iraqis can't resolve sectarian differences — in a bill to provide funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid signaled he would follow suit by seeking a vote on a similar measure that would set a target of March 2008 for most combat troops to be out.
It is very unlikely to pass the Senate--and besides, as the USA Today report notes, "The White House immediately threatened a veto. Dan Bartlett, a senior presidential adviser, told reporters traveling with the president to Latin America that Bush will reject any legislation that sets dates for troop withdrawal."
Past Reason reporting and analysis on the Democrats and their gumption to stop the war from David Weigel and from me.
joe | March 9, 2007, 1:53pm | #
Bush strategy for the War on Terror:
1. Foster dissent on your own homefront. Your victory will marginalize them in the domestic political arena.
2. Alienate traditional allies. Your victory will compel them to fall in line behind your foreign policy.
3. Go in with the absolute minimum force necessary to win militarily. It's much easier to gain widespread support if the scope of the war is minimized.
4. Open up a second front against a heretofore neutral party. If you're winning on the first front, you can just coast, and everything will turn out right.
5. Divide your forces. That way, you can win twice as much!
6. Reinforce failure via gradual, marginal increases in strength. I can't even think of a sarcastic explaination for why this is a good idea.
7. Starve success. If they're winning, why what would additional resources accomplish?
8. Trust that the post-war will take of itself. Freedom is messy, and you need to concentrate your political experts on coming up with plans for your victory lap.
9. Don't sweat the intel - any old threat will do. Once you win, no one's going to care.
10. If it doesn't work, attribute failure to what somebody did five and a half years later.
joe | March 9, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Tricky Vic,
"The question is much do we want to invest, life and money, into a country that's more interested in fighting a civil war than coming to peace?"
I disagree that that's the question. There was no - zilch, zero, nada - civil war in Iraq for two years after we deposed Saddam. Heck, the Sunni insurgency teamed up with the Mehdi Army during the Falluja battles, carrying out coordinated attacks on our supply columns while the Shiites fought it out with us.
This civil war didn't start until Al Qaeda - which, let's not forget, was a non-entity in Iraq before we allowed/invited them in - came to Iraq by the thousands and purposely, deliberately carried out a campaign of terror against Shiites in an attempt to provoke retaliation and a civil war. Heck, for over a year after their campaign started, the Shiite leadership was able to restrain their people from taking revenge on Sunnis, until they bombed the holiest mosque in Shia-slavia.
There is nothing natural or inevitable about this civil war. It has been provoked, carried out, and sustained by political forces with agendas that go far beyond the interests of the Iraqi Sunnis or Shia.
Therefore, the question is not "What should we do about a country that's INTERESTED in fighting a civil war?" The qustion is, "What can we do to promote a political solution that will end the civil war?"
The answer to the former is "Get the hell out, ASAP." The question to the latter is still "Get out," but there's a lot more to it than that.
TrickyVic | March 9, 2007, 4:13pm | #
It's irrelevent what started when, we are left with a certain reality. The civil war did not start with Al Qaeda, they just escalated what was already there.
""the Shiite leadership was able to restrain their people from taking revenge on Sunnis""
Were they? Shiites were not attacking Sunnis prior? I admit it was not the same level as now, but they were already fighting.
Sunnis and shias have been fighting for the same reason for over 1000 years, the level of fighing may change from time to time, and they are continuing that fight now. I think it had something to do with one side killing a descendant of Mohammad. Of course, I'm speaking in general terms, not all Sunnis and Shias are fighting. But, take a look around that region and you will find many are starting to take up the fight again.
"" The qustion is, "What can we do to promote a political solution that will end the civil war?"""
This would be the question if we were able to promote a political solution, but the Iraqis are not intersted in a political one. They show the world some effort, but behind the effort and the appearance, they are doing the opposite and planning how to get their side to win the civil war. The only peace they want comes when the enemy is defeated. Shia's have one vision of Iraq, Sunnis have another, and the last couple of years show much about their interest to meet in the middle. It will be as easy to solve politically as the Palestine/Israeli conflict.
If a political solution is viable in years to come, the question becomes how many year and at what cost to us. If they want to fight for another 1000 years, and only the Iraqis can answer that, do we want to continue funding the mission for that long at the current cost of money and life? Therefore, my question stands. And it will stand until the day your question looks more feasible. Not until the two factions are willing to put down their arms, forgive their neighbor to remove the "revenge factor" will your question come into play. You could divde Iraq with a wall and what would prevent them from tearing down. Us? For how long and at what cost?
There is nothing effective we can do to promote a political solution until the Iraqis are ready. We've tried, and we continue to try to promote a political solution and we continue to fail. I am acknowledging why we are failing, and that the solution has little to do with us.
You can put your question on top and I would ask, how many years at great cost to us are you going to sit around waiting for an answer? Agian, my question stands.
My belief, is that whenever we leave, 2 or 50 years from now, they will start fighting again. They have issuse they need to resolve first, and before they can resolve them, they have to desire to resolve them.
joe | March 9, 2007, 4:40pm | #
Tricky Vic,
Certainly, the fissure between the two communities has historic roots, but the presence of a fissure is not the same thing as a war. I could ask "No black Americans and white Americans were fighting?" Of course, some are. Of course, there are some people in each community who are motivated by prejudice, even some who act violently because of that, but that's not a civil war.
"But, take a look around that region and you will find many are starting to take up the fight again." Yes, now that there is a sectarian civil war with implications for the regional balance of power and the potential for mind-boggling massacres, other nations are lining up behind their co-sectarians. Again, this lining up is a consequence of the civil war that Al Qaeda provoked, not the cause.
"There is nothing effective we can do to promote a political solution until the Iraqis are ready. We've tried, and we continue to try to promote a political solution and we continue to fail." We continue to try to promote and political solution AS OUR OCCUPATION CONTINUES. The occupation, which has us backing a Shiite government which is involved in anti-Sunni death squad activities. The occupation, which turns the Iraqi government from a potentially unifying force to one collaborating with infidel invaders. The occupation, which encourages Sunnis to provide shelter and support to foreign Sunni jihadists, who are eager to provoke a civil war.
We need to end the occupation, not to wash our hands of the whole mess, but as a tool to advance the political reconcilliation process, and to allow both sides to team up and dispose of the few thousand Al Qaeda operatives in the country.
Our continued presence has caused Iraqi politics to revolved around us, rather than around governing Iraq. Maybe it is too late for what I call the Northern Ireland Solution to take hold - maybe the momentum of the civil war we set in motion is such that it cannot be stopped, even after the removal of the problem that caused it to come about. But maybe not. If we had political leadership in this country capably of pursuing a foreign policy with tactics a little more advanced than HULK SMASH!, we might really have a chance to avoid complete disaster - failed state, Al Qaeda camps, Biarfa-level massacres, regional war.
And, BTW, our disagreement isn't about staying vs. leaving. It's about how to leave.
TrickyVic | March 9, 2007, 9:55pm | #
I think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.
You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.
We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.
They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".
Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?
I think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.
You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.
We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.
They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".
Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?
I think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.
You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.
We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.
They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".
Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?
cI think our disagreement is more about the reason(s) for the lack of peace. I'm merely saying the violence is motivated by strong sectarian differences and revenge for something from days past. I'm saying peace in the Iraqi homeland it up to the Iraqis first, and if they prefer to kill each other instead, we shouldn't spend a lot of our money.
You seem to exclude their anger towards each other, instead focusing on AQ, the occupation, and other exterior forces.
We've bent over backwards to help them. When Paul Bremer was handing out Billions, they squandered it and it was Iraqi money from previously frozen assests. That's how they treated the return of their own treasure. Why would they treat American money differently? They looted everything in their own country. We try to help them with their army, and half won't show up for duty! Political solutions have failed because milita might beats politics. Politics can not take hold until the militas are interested in ending the fight, both sides.
They are not "ready" because they not interested in being "ready". They have a total different agenda for Iraq than what we do. They are not too concerned with our definiton of "ready".
Sure, it's worth a shot, or two. But without them showing a willingness to stop their own violence, will it be worth three? Four?
Genghis Kahn | March 10, 2007, 2:30am | #
Whatever the theories as to why we went to Iraq, and how good those theories proved to be, the question is "now what?".
If we were really in Iraq for the oil, at least it would make some kind of sense. You could agree or disagree, but at least there'd be a clear, substantive "something" to ponder. And at least there'd be a reason to still have an army over there.
TV and joe can argue about the root causes of the current Iraq disaster. They're probably both right.
You know, there just might have been a reason why Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator. Maybe, because nobody else had a snowball's chance in hell of ruling Iraq.
The US is simply unequal to the task, as I've said from the beginning (which proves just how smart I really am, see?).
But it doesn't change the fact that the US has only one legit interest left in Iraq and that's oil. Because, you see:
1) Guy needs to print up some more carbon credits, and right now they aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
2) We really should make sure terrorists aren't getting their hands on the oil.
3) It would be really nice if we had access to the world's second largest known oil reserves ourselves.
4) Guy really, really needs to sell carbon credits to
somebody before his wife and kids starve to death.
Our war banners should read "liberate the fucking oil, already".
Oddly enough, the Greenies should be rooting for an ME-wide sectarian show down. There wouldn't be a need to pass a carbon tax, the Arabs would have effectively done it for us.
And the terrorists wouldn't follow us home because they'd be too busy terrorizing each other in their own homes.
Ahhhhh!! :) See? I just proved that both Left and Right have a vested interest in blowing Iraq into a regional civil war.
Neither of them is going to bring our troops home until they're sure they've accomplished it.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
