Iraq: Memory Lane, But There Is No Time Like The Present

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:02:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Former senator Linc Chafee talks about the past:

There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office. . . . Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002. Senator Levin’s amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. . . . Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: . . . the amendment explicitly avowed America’s right to defend itself if threatened.

All true . But what I care about is now. What is Carl Levin doing NOW to end the war? Not as much.

MR. RUSSERT: What are you going to do? SEN. LEVIN: Hopefully, we’re going to come up with a resolution which is going to modify, in effect, the previous resolution, which was very broad, told the president that he had authority to do basically whatever he wanted to in Iraq, and to come up with wording which would modify that broad resolution and broad authority so that we would be in a supporting role, rather than a in combat role, in Iraq. Things have changed in Iraq. We don’t believe that it’s going to be possible to remove all of our troops from Iraq because there’s going to be a limited purpose that they’re going to need to serve, including a training, continued training of the Iraqi army, support for logistics in the Iraqi army, a counterterrorism purpose or a mission because there’s about 5,000 al-Qaida in Iraq. So we want to—we want to transform, or we want to modify that earlier resolution to more limited purpose. That is our goal. We hope to pick up some Republicans; we don’t know if we will. But the final drafting is going on this weekend.

Perhaps this is good politics. I do not know. But it won't end the war in Iraq. Levin will not pick up ANY Republicans. Bush will veto.

Perhaps Dems feel that if that happens , they can then say to the American People, 'see, he leaves us no choice, we have to defund the war to end it.' I think he can say that now. But, let's see what happens.

In any event, I think we citizens need to continue to clamor for an end to the Iraq Debacle.

< Anonymous Blog Comments: Patterico Agrees With Greenwald, I Think | McCain: 'Lives Wasted In Iraq,' What Will Malkin Say? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iraq: Memory Lane, But There Is No Time Like The Present | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A picture is worth a 1000 words (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 07:49:01 AM EST

In this case, 10,000 words.

Can we really end the debacle? (none / 0) (#1)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:15:15 PM EST

I wish it were so simple that we could pull our troops out and the debacle would end.

Powell warned Bush about owning a failed Iraqi state. Unfortunately Bush turned a deaf ear to the sound advice that Powell gave him. Bush also ignored the Powell doctrine, and the latest "surge" is too little too late to try to assert strength.

But the fact is that we currently own a failed state. I solidly opposed the war, and a lot of things I worried about turned out right, but I cannot honestly say that the situation in Iraq turned out exactly as I had thought it would.

I have similar misgivings about what to do now. Would violence increase when we pull out? Would it lead to greater violence in the mid east? I don't have a crystal ball, and maybe I am wrong, but all these things seem possible.

It is mostly Bush's fault that the situation has been so politicized and that politics is far more important than doing the right thing. But at this stage I don't even know what the "right" thing is. Maybe there is no clean exit.

Diplomacy and $$$$ (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by squeaky on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:47:02 PM EST

There are many ways to end the war in Iraq. The Republican slogans of either Stay The Course, or Cut and Run, only show how disingenuous the War Party is.

The best way to patch things up is to first take responsibility for making a horrible mistake. Apologize to the Iraqi people and give them at least one hundred billion dollars in war reparations.

Since the Iraq war was not an honest mistake, but one that was thoroughly dishonest a War Crimes tribunal should be set up and the people that conned us into the scam war should face the Iraqi people, just like Sadaam did.

Then a truth and reconciliation program has to be set up modeled after the largely successful program in South Africa.

That should go a long way to mend a disastrous rip we opened up in the mid-east.


Will this solve things? (none / 0) (#3)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:58:48 PM EST

Will this solve things?

Giving them a hundred billion dollars is a non starter given the deficit hole that Bush has already dug us in. The Chinese have funded a lot of Bush's borrowing, but things have been a lot shakier on the Chinese front lately.

And who would we give a hundred billion dollars to? That money will end up lining some pockets and little good will come out of it. There are plenty of oil resources in Iraq, but the people there are fighting over the spoils. Throwing a hundred billion dollars will not stop the fighting.

Who would offer the apology? Bush will not. Hillary will not. And even if someone offers an apology that will not cause the Shiites and the Sunnis to lay down their arms and be one happy family.


Squeaky, could you be serious and (none / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 07:29:53 AM EST

explain why you think that the terrorists will not continue to attack us?


Algeria (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:21:36 AM EST

Perhaps you should bone up what happened when the French left Algeria.


From the CIA World Factbook (none / 0) (#15)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:05:32 PM EST

ALGERIA

Ethnic groups: Arab-Berber 99%

Religions: Sunni Muslim (state religion) 99%, Christian and Jewish 1%

That is a totally different model than Iraq.


Non-Sequitur (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 01:40:15 PM EST

What does that have to do with Iraqis wanting to attack the US after we leave? The Algerian terrorism against the French stopped after they left, contrary to many warning the same thing as ppj.


I agree (none / 0) (#18)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:17:56 PM EST

My apologies. I agree with what you said.


: Noproblem (none / 0) (#19)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 02:54:19 PM EST

I was surprised and am not surprised that you agree.

Squeaky, you need to (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:48:58 PM EST

stop and consider that when the French left Algeria there wasn't a multiple number of terrorist groups...

But hey, don't let changes in the world spoil your justification.


Could you expand on why: (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 07:18:48 AM EST

It is mostly Bush's fault that the situation has been so politicized and that politics is far more important than doing the right thing.

because (none / 0) (#7)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:02:08 AM EST

Because Bush/Rove approached the Iraq war as an issue with which they could beat up the Democrats. They did not make the effort to build a consensus on Iraq, and used half truths to drum up support for the invasion. They treated it as an issue where truth was secondary to their political ideology and goals. They spent more effort in smearing their political opponents than in getting the truth out or in doing the right thing in Iraq.

In hindsight we should acknowledge that General Shinseki was ABSOLUTELY correct when he said that we would need hundreds of thousands of troops for years in Iraq. Yet the Bush administration had no intention of having an honest debate on that issue. Similarly Lawrence Lindsey was attacked for saying that the war would cost $100-200 Billion - a figure that now looks like a bargain.


Because Bush/Rove approached (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:45:26 AM EST

the Iraq war as an issue with which they could beat up the Democrats.

No, that comment, and the following comments are another claim.

When, and how, did Bush/Rove do this?

If you will remember, in 2002 and into 2003, the Demo leaders fell all over themselves to condemn Saddam. Bush/Rove had no need to beat up the Demos.

So please, how about some information, with dates and links.

General Shinsek himself said "something in the order of..." That was hardly a ringing phrase that demanded people to gather around him. If he had made a statement like..... "at least 200,000..." his comments would be worthy of the attention the ati-war Left has given him.

Reasonable people can differ on tactics. Rumsfeld is, was and will be until he dies, an aggressive manager who will and has argued in public.

So what??

The war strategy assumed that after the invasion the Iraqis would be happy to be rid of Saddam, and they were. It was only after the Left and the Demos started their continual attacking that the various terrorist groups figured out they could win a political victory if they just waited, killing as many US troops as possible with low risk to themselves to give the Demos as much help as possible.


You are missing the point (none / 0) (#14)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 11:17:27 AM EST

No, that comment, and the following comments are another claim.
When, and how, did Bush/Rove do this?

If you are asking for the smoking gun memo where Rove wrote that the Iraq war would be a great tool for Republicans to beat up Democrats, then you are correct - I do not have with me a copy of that smoking gun memo.

In support of what I said I can offer the following points:

Bush/Rove were not honest about the rationale for the war. They hyped up the things that supported their ideological drive for the war, and ignored and suppressed things that did not support their ideological drive for the war.
In the aftermath of the war, they leaked parts of the NIE that supported them, and suppressed (in the name of national security) parts that did not support them. Again an issue where ideology and partisanship came before truth.
If they were not interested in politicizing the issue they would not have tabled the 2002 war resolution right before the 2002 elections. There was ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why that resolution could not have been tabled say in Feb 2003. Furthermore since the Republicans insist that the judges they appoint should follow the written words of the constitution, there is no reason why the Congress itself should not have declared war in March 2003.
Rove and his surrogates went after Wilson for being a Democrat, as if a Democrat could not be trusted with intelligence gathering.

A majority of Democratic Congressmen voted against the Iraq war. Almost everyone I know (myself included) has condemned Saddam. That does not mean that war was justified.

Here is the exact quote from Wikipedia:
GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" [13] and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. [1]

Shinseki said exactly what you said would make him worthy.

The point about Shinseki is that Bush never felt the need to have an honest dialog on an issue as important as taking us to war. And the lack of honesty indicates the ideological driven motives.

Shinseki based his numbers on actual studies done by the army. Rummie and Wolfie based their numbers not an any study, but on an ideological belief.

Shinseki was correct and Rummy was wrong - I don't know why some people fail to acknowledge this today when it is crystal clear.

Reasonable people can differ on tactics. Rumsfeld is, was and will be until he dies, an aggressive manager who will and has argued in public.
So what??
The war strategy assumed that after the invasion the Iraqis would be happy to be rid of Saddam, and they were.

Reasonable people should now be concluding how the assumptions of the Bush administration were deeply flawed (since they were made on ideological grounds and not on factual grounds), and that the tactics of the Bush administration were deeply flawed.

It was only after the Left and the Demos started their continual attacking that the various terrorist groups figured out they could win a political victory if they just waited, killing as many US troops as possible with low risk to themselves to give the Demos as much help as possible.

The same old canard parroted over and over does not make it true. It is not the left which is against the war, it is a solid majority of this country. Your guy had full control over the execution of the Iraq war, he bungled it, and the buck stops at his desk.


Very good (none / 0) (#16)
by glanton on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 12:20:10 PM EST

Excellent post, Middle. Your arguments fit your moniker well.

guy had full control over the execution of the Iraq war, he bungled it, and the buck stops at his desk.

This is something that most on all sides have accepted, but don't hold your breath expecting to get a concession out of Jim. He has repeatedly stated that the invaders themselves are entirely absolved of responsibility for the killing taking place in Iraq.

Even Bush himself has not gone nearly this far into Wonderland, though. The public mind is currently in concert with what you have said.

However, Middle of the Road, I submit that eventually lots of Americans are going to start wondering if the Democrats are ever going to even try to end this misadventure.


: Glanton, I think that most (none / 0) (#20)
by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:25:45 PM EST

are wondering that now.

MOTR... (none / 0) (#21)
by desertswine on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:45:16 PM EST

Nice post.


Middle of the Far Left side of the road..... (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:33:29 PM EST

So what you have is an opinion.

Prove that they were not honest. Every intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMDs.
Let's have some factual links that they suppressed things.
What? If they hadn't have tabled it you would have been crying that they were making it an election issue. And the same rules should have applied when we went into Kosvo, etc and etc.
Wilson was went after because he started a spitting contest. I have already detailed that he confirmed to the CIA that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake, something he failed to mention in his NYT memo. There is also the remaining question as to why he claimed to know things that he couldn't have known before the IAEC report came out.

In any event, that was in 2003 and your claim is that:

Because Bush/Rove approached the Iraq war as an issue with which they could beat up the Democrats.

And then...

Almost everyone I know (myself included) has condemned Saddam. That does not mean that war was justified.

So you condemn the Devil, but do nothing to try and stop sin?

Great moralist you are. ;-)

Seriously. That's what I like about people who fancy themselves so reasoned and, well, middle of the road.

Are you familiar with the story of the middle age Monks who would spend their lives debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

(Of course the answer was, "As many as God wanted.)

Shinseki was correct and Rummy was wrong

That's with 20-20 hindsight. If you look at what was known then, and the lack of real fervor, you can see why the General lost.

BTW - Since there was no debate, what was this? Chopped liver?

The fact is, we didn't use sufficient force, which we could have done without the huge number of troops. Why? Too much concern over infrastructure and collateral deaths.

I would posit that if you decide to go to war, collateral deaths should be a low concern.

I would also argue that if we had killed and destroyed X amount more to begin with, a helluva lot fewer civilians would have been killed later. That's a tough statement, but I think it is accurate.

Sooner or later you must make a decision. Bush looked at the evidence and decided that Saddam couldn't be trusted. Based on what he knew then, and based on what I know now from Kay, etc., I am very happy we invaded.

The same old canard parroted over and over does not make it true.

I will the enemy answer you.

Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said before the 2006 vote: "Americans should vote Democratic," adding that "it is time the American people support those who want to take them out of the Iraqi mud." The statement could have come from Murtha, Kerry, Hillary or any number of Democrats.

BTW - I continue to wonder why the anti-war Left, and that is who you are, like to play the blame game. The "surge" appears to be working.

Would you agree that it would be wonderful if it does??


Are you for censorship? (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:50:00 AM EST

Well, come to think of it, you were for papers not carrying the so-called insulting cartoons the Imams condemned.

BTW - Nope, was not aware. Must have been pretty snarky for them to be concerned.

: Well, why bring the Secret Service up??? (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:51:43 PM EST

I mean, you did mean to have a chilling effect, didn't you???

And (none / 0) (#12)
by jondee on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 10:17:19 AM EST

ppj is for forcing papers to publish Chickenhawk Comics; or risk being insinuated terrorist lovers.

Jondee, do you even read the comment before (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:53:03 PM EST

you start spouting gibberish?


: off topic (none / 0) (#29)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:45:34 AM EST

and yet another personal attack.

Sorry about that "chickenhawk" (none / 0) (#28)
by jondee on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:33:29 AM EST

what I meant to say was chickensh*thawk.

Personally, I think the newspapers should all be coerced into publishing Treason in installments also.