Cover

To expand a bit on Atrios' latest ISG remarks, the gigantic gaping black hole of error into which the ISG seems to have stumbled is the belief that George W. Bush and his key aides had some kind of secret desire to implement a reasonable Middle East policy and were merely backed into a corner by some unfortunately misguided past statements. I couldn't really say why they thought that, but they obviously did and belief in such things is weirdly widespread. Earlier today I heard someone float the notion that the White House had spiked an op-ed calling for a grand bargain with Iran because they were busy conducting "quiet diplomacy" aimed at . . . a grand bargain with Iran. Well, if you believe that I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

It's hard for some folks to believe, but Bush in his own goofy way clearly believes roughly what he says about Iraq. That to lose the war would be a disaster and that to leave Iraq is to lose the war. That, somehow, a perpetual US military presence there will create a democracy. That we must never negotiate with evil. He's been president a long time now and these ideas are guiding his thinking and will continue to do so unless he's forced to make changes. He doesn't need "political cover" to do something knew, he needs to be made to do it.

Comments

I agree with every word of that, which leaves me wondering what mechanism exists for forcing the president? The Dems would never have the balls to cut funding, and I think if they did Bush would still refuse to budge. I don't know what would happen legally when the money ran out, but I can't imagine the dems playing that game of chicken.

Posted by aleks | December 19, 2006 1:43 AM

"Goofy" in the sense of "bloody-minded and frighteningly deranged".

And just to cheer everyone up, I'll remind you that there are no significant institutional restraints on the Commander in Chief.

Have a nice two years.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 2:02 AM

Yea, I think everyone must really think we're actually living in a John Grisham novel or something. No one can make the President do anything. The best anyone can do is try like hell to keep the bus from careening off the cliff - which is a noble effort, but one doomed to fail.

Cheney cut the brake lines long ago, Rumsfeld has glued the gas pedal to the floor and Bush has jammed the steering wheel so no one can turn it even if they wanted to. The Greek chorus on the right keeps chanting "faster, faster".

All Robert Gates can do is comment that the cliff seems to be approaching mighty darn fast.

It's going to be a lot longer than 2 years, I'm afraid. Disasters like this take generations to wind their way through.

Posted by Azael | December 19, 2006 2:19 AM

There's always the possibility that the government of Iraq could ask us to leave.

Is Maliki really just a neocon puppet?

Or does he really believe that U.S. troops can help stabilize Iraq?

Posted by alphie | December 19, 2006 3:09 AM

The Democrats in Congress may not be able to force Bush to do anything in particular. They certainly cannot force Bush to do anything in particular competently.

But, reality has a nasty way of parting a fool from whatever a fool tries to hold onto.

The Congress cannot force Bush out, but you can bet that the Joint Chiefs are feeling a good deal more spine, now that Chairman Murtha heads the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Gates and Rice appear ready to have a go at Cheney.

And, then there are the Iraqis. Bush thinks he can intervene in Baghdad and simply "defeat" the Sunni insurgents and "disarm" the Sadr militia. Like that's going to work.

Congress cannot force him out, but the Iraqis, in extremis, may tell the U.S. to leave. It is not like the U.S. is real popular with anyone in Iraq.

And, finally, there's the American People. Bush's approval ratings are already verging on the 30% boundary, below which is hanging territory. Facing a deteriorating situation in Iraq and an avalanche of Congressional investigations, his approval ratings are not going to rise.

My prediction: Cheney gets thrown under a bus.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | December 19, 2006 3:17 AM

This is such a good point, and upon reflection, a fairly obvious extension of the famous "reality-based community" quote. If there is one realm where that sort of thinking actually sorta works, it is the political one.

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 3:17 AM

I couldn't really say why they thought that, but they obviously did and belief in such things is weirdly widespread.

"If the czar only knew!" I thought only the peasants made that mistake, but apparently it's common in elite circles as well.

"There's always the possibility that the government of Iraq could ask us to leave." -- alphie

I suspect that's why Bush is trying to sideline Sadr. Hakim is probably willing to let us stay to help take down his rival. Otherwise, it makes no sense for us to work with SCIRI -- the party that's closest to Iran.

If true, this means that Bush is going to attack Iran so that SCIRI can't get the better part of the deal. It's all a matter of who betrays whom first.

Posted by Carl | December 19, 2006 3:52 AM

"He's been president a long time now and these ideas are guiding his thinking and will continue to do so unless he's forced to make changes. He doesn't need "political cover" to do something knew, he needs to be made to do it."

So, how will Bush be forced to make changes? How will he be made to do it?

There's impeachment, and there's cutting off funds for all Iraqi operations. And if you think there's even the slimmest chance that the votes will be there for either of those two options between now and January 2009, then I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

Matthew is even more divorced from reality on the war than Bush is. That's perversely impressive.

One might even postulate that Matthew's resolute insistence in evading the realities of the situation come from a desire to seek cover for his original support of the war.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 7:06 AM

The only relief from Bush will come in January, 2009.

Posted by steve duncan | December 19, 2006 7:53 AM

The other specter haunting Congress is the results of pulling out. Down the road, radicals get another nuclear state in Iraq and either fight with or join the nuclear radicals in Iran. Europe gets blackmailed into ever closer relationships with the source of their oil while the Russians and Chinese ride the Islamist tiger as a way of bringing down the US.

Then the debate starts "Who lost Iraq?".

The bottom line is that smart pols who want to have a future won't touch the Iraq issue with a 10 foot pole, probably from either side. There is no good outcome sure enough from any point of view or any strategy.

As long as the Shiite and Kurds can hold off the Sunni radicals from taking power, the hawks can muddle through. That's probably the new strategy. As the US gets more and more resigned to an Iraq that's not exactly a shining city on a hill, a bloodbath of Sunnis is going to look more and more acceptable to Americans. That leaves the Kurds and Sistani-Shiites in charge, which is "Good enough".

Posted by Warren | December 19, 2006 7:59 AM

The point to notice is not that the Democrats cannot force Bush to make changes, its that the Democrats are not even trying to force Bush to make changes. The ISG is not so much political cover for Bush, but political cover for those Democrats who prefer to accommodate Bush, under the cover of bipartisan establishment blessing and advice, rather than try to force an alternative direction.

Posted by otto | December 19, 2006 8:06 AM

While I must confess to not having read the whole ISG report, I find one point especially troubling. The idea in the ISG is that now the US should finally 'Solve' the Arab-Israeli dispute. Like it's that easy. It makes me think the whole ISG is not very serious.

Posted by Warren | December 19, 2006 8:44 AM

What if the house started impeachment proceedings against Cheney? That could send a message.

Posted by right | December 19, 2006 8:51 AM

"That could send a message."

You misread Matthew.

The important thing is to force Bush to change policy, not send him a message. The ISG sent him a message. The important thing is to make Bush change policy.

The other important thing is give everyone a pony.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 8:56 AM

It's not trying to 'solve' the Palestinian crisis which is not very serious. That's been the policy since 2000 (if not before).

Posted by otto | December 19, 2006 9:08 AM

And just to cheer everyone up, I'll remind you that there are no significant institutional restraints on the Commander in Chief.

The first step toward forcing the president's hand is to drop this kind of self-defeating excuse-making for congressional passivity, and junk the silly myths of executive supremacy that have been pressed by the Bush administration.

The Congress in fact has vast powers in the area of foreign policy. For one thing, the Congress has a pretty impressive "bully pulpit" of its own, if it chooses to employ it rather than playing it safe. More high-profile trips to the Middle East; more high-profile hearings; subpeonas and prosecutions; tighter management of the budget; withdrawal of authorizations - these tools are all available to a congress with the will to use them. Of course they cannot physically compel the President to do what they want. But the Congress is well-positioned to sieze control of the Iraq debate in this country, and thereby render the president's contrary positions politically untenable. Eventually Republican political leaders will be required to do the dirty work, go to the White House, and lay down the law.

The reason this has not happened yet is not due to deep institutional or constitutional reasons. It is simply a matter of the political expediency of passing the buck. Even after the election, some Democratic opinion leaders, who have apparently internalized the posture of submission and failure, have recommended two more years of laying low, letting more American soldiers die, and letting the White House dig its own grave, so we can ride to victory in 2008 on the backs of death and military defeat.

It is all a matter now of rank and file Democrats demanding and end to this policy, and making it clear that they expect a strategy of leadership from their Representatives and senators, rather than cynical and passive-aggressive electioneering.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 19, 2006 9:21 AM

"But the Congress is well-positioned to sieze control of the Iraq debate in this country, and thereby render the president's contrary positions politically untenable."

So the 11% support in the polls for increasing the troop level in Iraq means that measure is politically tenable? The fact that only 11% of voters support that means it won't happen?

And again, you are misreading Matthew. The important thing is not to seize control of the political debate. The important thing is to force Bush to change policy and to give ponies to all Americans.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 9:29 AM

I'm afraid of some of the scenarios war nerds are laying out for the US military tied down in Iraq, riddled with Category IV and gang member quota filler recruits and dependent on a long, fragile Kuwaiti supply line, to lose a traditional nation-state fight with Iran straight up, counting aid from militias and infiltration of Iraqi forces. It would be a scale of defeat we have never experienced, and it would be Poitiers for Iran. We need to get out immediately, as in leave Humvees behind immediately. Tactics need to be considered at this stage.

Posted by Turkey | December 19, 2006 9:38 AM

Events have pushed me "leftwards" on a daily basis over the last 5 years, to the point where I can see a silver lining in all of this. By increasing troop levels and breaking the army, as well as further reducing what limited credibility we have left in the international arena, as well as strengthening our enemies, the next two years will bring us that much closer to a day when US power and influence in the world will be at an all time low. A good thing IMO for both the United States and the world.

Posted by A Patriot | December 19, 2006 9:52 AM

Impeachment isn't nearly as unlikely as Petey claims. It's not necessarily likely, either, but to claim that future revelations and military calamities won't effect matters in surprising ways is pretty dumb.

Posted by sglover | December 19, 2006 10:25 AM

sglover, petey isn't making a comment about impeachment, he's making a comment about petey, although he thinks he's making a comment about matthew.

as for matthew's comment, the only way to make bush change course that is open to american leverage is defunding the war. given that there was a national consensus in favor of ending the vietnam war expressed in the 1968 election and yet it still took 5 years for the war to be defunded, that's not a realistic expectation. (impeachment wouldn't change policy and would take quite a while at best.)

but i have felt for a while that events on the ground will provide leverage: things can and will get worse. every day i wake up and wonder "is this the day that a major attack on the green zone takes place? is this the day that some american troops are captured? is this the day that maliki gets assassinated?"

given the predilections of this white house and the lack of spine at the joint chiefs, i'm concerned that we don't even have an emergency withdrawal plan (although i'm sure that our plan to invade France is right up to date!).

Posted by howard | December 19, 2006 10:33 AM

"Impeachment isn't nearly as unlikely as Petey claims. It's not necessarily likely, either, but to claim that future revelations and military calamities won't effect matters in surprising ways is pretty dumb."

Well, sure. Future revelations are always uncertain. I'm sure that if George Bush were to grab an assault weapon and mow down a troop of girl scouts, impeachment might be in the cards.

But short of killing multiple girl scouts on the WH lawn, who precisely do you think the 67th vote in the Senate to remove Bush would be?

But once George Bush is removed from office, I'm sure that'll force Dick Cheney to change course in Iraq and provide ponies to all Americans.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 10:37 AM

Petey, we get it already. Good God.

Posted by Steve | December 19, 2006 10:47 AM

"given that there was a national consensus in favor of ending the vietnam war expressed in the 1968 election and yet it still took 5 years for the war to be defunded, that's not a realistic expectation."

It's even worse than that:

- The defunding came in December '74, almost 7 years after the first definite signs of the anti-war consensus were expressed in New Hampshire in early '68.

- The defunding almost definitely wouldn't have happened absent the WH's political weakness following the mostly unrelated Watergate and Nixon resignation.

- And most crucially, the defunding happened after all US combat troops were withdrawn from Vietnam by the WH, not before. If troops had remained in the field, I think a reasonable reading of history indicates that we never would have gotten 2/3rds majorities to defund.

So let us all bash the ISG because it doesn't force Bush to change course.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 10:47 AM

"Petey, we get it already. Good God."

Subtlety's for suckers.

Or to put it another way, Matthew's been repeating various versions of this canard for about 2 years now. Our host doesn't get it yet.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 10:49 AM

as i said to sglover, steve, petey is making comments about petey, although he thinks he's making comments about matthew. i congratulate him on knowing that he's not subtle, but the flipside is that he's bombastic whether he's correct (which he often is) or not (such as when he tells us that the knicks are emerging as this year's toughest team in their division or when he told us that larry hughes was one of the top 6 players under 6' 10").

in this case, petey has long argued that there is no such thing as a viable anti-war politics; now he's also arguing that there is no viable means to change policy under bush; in short, he's actually got nothing to say on this matter, but he's saying it rather loudly.

and petey, new hampshire '68 plus 7 years = 1975....

Posted by howard | December 19, 2006 10:54 AM

"in this case, petey has long argued that there is no such thing as a viable anti-war politics"

No. There are viable anti-war politics. But keeping a firm grasp on reality is crucial to determining what those politics are.

"now he's also arguing that there is no viable means to change policy under bush"

I think that's been reasonably clear since November '04. If Bush wants to push the defeat in Iraq onto the next administration, and he's willing to endure approval ratings in the 20's to do so, no one is going to be able to stop him.

"and petey, new hampshire '68 plus 7 years = 1975...."

NH '68 -> Congress Defunding = 6 years and 10 months.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 11:04 AM

Matt says he needs to be forced, Petey says he can't/won't be forced.

It should be noted that both those statements can be true--there might just might be no possible way to change Bush's Iraq policy. All we can do is position ourselves to end it as quickly as possible in January 2009. That means making sure everyone knows that this war continues in spite of us--that if we gain more power it will come to a halt.

I'm not sure Petey is right, though--Congress won't cut off the funding, but next time Bush asks for a renewal of funds they could attach conditions to it. The Dems promised they wouldn't vote to cut off funding--but if it's the Republican senators filibustering or Bush vetoing the bill, well, NOW who's voting against funding our troops? Dems can't force a pullout, but there probably are some changes they can force.

One thing is for certain, though--the ISG certainly hasn't accomplished anything. The idea that Bush will change if given political cover to do so--or that he'd be convinced by any reasonable argument that he needs to change--well, that argument has been falsified by Bush's reaction to the ISG.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 19, 2006 11:26 AM

petey, in terms of funding, let's at least get the basic facts out of the way: i referred to the '68 election, because new hampshire was not, in fact, dispositive about the american public (although it was defintive for lbj). the defunding happened in the fall of '74, which i suppose i should really have counted as 6 years (fall '68 presidential election, fall '74 final funding cutback), but which i called 5 years because i was saying '69 - '74.

regardless, yes, it's highly unlikely that congress will eliminate funding while there are still 150K or so troops in iraq.

so then we get to anti-war politics. admittedly, i don't read and remember every word of your oeuvre, but i have quite literally no idea what it means to say that "there are viable anti-war politics" but that they must be based on "a firm grasp of reality." Your long-term argument has been that a firm grasp of reality renders anti-war politcs unviable.

Which really leads me to wonder what it is that you're trying to say here: your actual words are there is no way out of iraq and anyone who says we need to find a way out of iraq "doesn't get it." Which i translate as nothing to say on this matter. correct me, would you please? what actually are you trying to say (other than "i'm smarter than matthew").

Posted by howard | December 19, 2006 11:30 AM

Sorry to be a broken record on the subject, but it has always been clear to me that we are at war in Iraq because Bush wants to be at war in Iraq. He will have to be out of office for it to end. I personally think his and Cheney's impeachment is a matter of our survival. They are stone cold loonies.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 19, 2006 11:36 AM

"what actually are you trying to say (other than "i'm smarter than matthew").

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 11:38 AM

But once George Bush is removed from office, I'm sure that'll force Dick Cheney to change course in Iraq and provide ponies to all Americans.

This is why I suggested sacrificing Cheney first.

1) It puts Bush on notice that he needs to change course in Iraq or else he's next.
2) It gives Congress control over who becomes VP (otherwise Pelosi is next in line)

Bush would either need to get in line quick, or be deposed in favor of Pelosi or a compromise replacement candidate (I don't have the slightest idea who that would be, by the way... Chuck Hagel?).

Posted by right | December 19, 2006 11:53 AM

Goddamn bunch of loser-defeatists around here. "Can't force Bush, can't stop the war, Congress is scared" And children die every day, and God only knows what Bush might do under increased stress, including nukes. Jesus, people. We don't want to look like dirty fucking hippies with puppets, and always gotta obey the law and not embarrass our grandparents.

What would Gene Debs, or Emma, or Mahatma, or Martin do? Or Lenin? I mean, get a clue, most of the Army, including the National Guard is outa the country! I am saying tough stuff, and Matt and Ezra whine and cry. Fuck you.
...
Don't worry about losing the Army in Iraq. Andrew at ObsWi worked in the Pentagon on withdrawal. Will not speak for him or even imply that this comes from him, but I think given a choice between 150k troops and Greenzone civies, and the lives of, oh, 5 million Iraqis, the US will get its people out. The plans have been made.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 19, 2006 11:59 AM

"This is why I suggested sacrificing Cheney first."

OK. So let's stipulate that all 51 Democratic Senators are willing - that somehow Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Max Baucus are going to vote to remove Cheney from office. Now that the vote count is up to 51, who are the 16 Republican Senators who will vote to remove Cheney?

I think the odds of this happening are somewhat less than a Swedish-style liberal democracy suddenly erupting in Iraq.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 12:02 PM

Who would I kill to keep Bush from nuking Iran? How many of Matt's commenters? Myself and the rest of you, without hesitation. Many more.

WTF has happened to this country? This can't stop Bush stuff, is why and how Bush is possible.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 19, 2006 12:06 PM

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

You need to find the serenity to accept that the ISG's consensus driven approach to changing our Iraq policy has failed.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 19, 2006 12:11 PM

"You need to find the serenity to accept that the ISG's consensus driven approach to changing our Iraq policy has failed."

No doubt. I think it most likely has failed, and before it came out, I thought it was most likely going to fail.

But, yet, the ISG report was still the correct institutional step to take.

Given that the only way that US troops can be removed from Iraq is for the WH to decide to do so, and given that the WH's reason for not removing troops is political, the ISG's purpose was to try to give Bush a face-saving political path out.

The fact that Bush was never very likely to actually take the face-saving path doesn't mean that offering it wasn't the correct thing to do.

Think of the ISG as a hostage negotiator. Maybe the bad guy is still going to kill his hostage and himself, but there's no shame in going out of your way in trying to give the bad guy a face saving way out of the standoff.

And finally, even though the ISG currently seems to have failed, Bush is going to face enormous pressure from his own party to at least begin withdrawals prior to the '08 primaries. If he decides to give in to that pressure, (and he certainly may end up not doing so), I strongly suspect he will use the ISG report as cover. If things play out that way, and the ISG ends up making withdrawal even a tiny bit easier for the WH, I think they will have done a great service.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 12:25 PM

Now that the vote count is up to 51, who are the 16 Republican Senators who will vote to remove Cheney?

Depends how well the case of Cheney's mendaciousness can be made in the trial and in the court of public opinion. There are 21 Republican senators up for reelection in 2008, plus you have Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Judd Gregg, etc. and it's not impossible to get there. No one said anything would be easy.

Posted by right | December 19, 2006 12:32 PM

"it's not impossible to get there."

Yes, it is.

In 230 years, there have been plenty of unpopular folks in the WH. And there's been a 2/3rd majority in the Senate for removal exactly once. And even that only came because Dick Nixon was caught on tape telling the CIA to have the FBI stop a judicial investigation into Dick Nixon.

If you've got Cheney on tape trying to get Peter Fitzgerald whacked, then it's possible. Short of that, you're going to max out at around 35 votes in the Senate, not 67 votes.

Mendaciousness alone doesn't get Presidents and Vice-Presidents removed from office mid-term.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 12:41 PM

Good luck with getting your anarchy on, Bob. It's fairly easy to talk tough (almost as easy as sucker punching Mardy Collins and then running away), but, uhm, what do we actually do, beyond you know having the will to stop Bush? Until you develop it a little further, you're not much different then the Steyn-Ledeen brigade on the score of "in touch with reality".

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 1:12 PM

sglover, petey isn't making a comment about impeachment, he's making a comment about petey, although he thinks he's making a comment about matthew.

Oh, I'm well aware of the conventions of petey-speak. Like...

If you've got Cheney on tape trying to get Peter Fitzgerald whacked, then it's possible. Short of that, you're going to max out at around 35 votes in the Senate, not 67 votes.

Since we can't know what investigations will turn up, any predictions about what is or is not "impossible" are -- well, let's say presumptuous, although goddam stupid would be another good description.

Petey might want to look beyond the haze of self-regard that surrounds him, and reflect on how "impossible" impeachment really is when every significant constituency -- elite, populist, military, you name it -- sees that it's necessary to end the hemorhage in Iraq, but finds an obstructionist president blocking every option. In the end, Nixon fell when he lost the faith of his own allies. If that isn't a good description of Bush's situation, I'd like to know what is.

Posted by Samuel Glover | December 19, 2006 1:25 PM

Petey: There's impeachment, and there's cutting off funds for all Iraqi operations. And if you think there's even the slimmest chance that the votes will be there for either of those two options between now and January 2009, then I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.

I actually agree, but what I mean is something like "There's really no hope. Things are almost certain to get much worse". What Petey means is "Look at all these stupid, silly people refusing to follow the realistic electoral strategy I have wisely laid out for them."

Petey is full of shit far too often, and I don't think it's possible to fix him.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 1:37 PM

Petey is our version of Karl Rove, except that he's a loser who has never accomplished anything. Politics is everything, and policy is nothing. For Petey Iraq is only a line on a public opinion poll. There's no actual place called "Iraq". There's no Iraq War. There are only voting blocs, elections, and the political process.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 1:41 PM

Petey plans to lose. And his plans would be very, very effective -- if only people would listen to him!

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 1:43 PM

Think of the ISG as a hostage negotiator. Maybe the bad guy is still going to kill his hostage and himself, but there's no shame in going out of your way in trying to give the bad guy a face saving way out of the standoff.

Sure, you have to always be in negotiation with the bad guy--but if people who opposed the war actually sign onto a document saying the war should continue, then you've gone too far, and you've made the war more likely to continue.

And finally, even though the ISG currently seems to have failed, Bush is going to face enormous pressure from his own party to at least begin withdrawals prior to the '08 primaries.

Right, outside pressure could very well succeed in forcing his hand, given that Bush seems to care about his political legacy--he wants the Republican era of governance to continue. In which case, the name of the game for war opponents is to make it clear to Bush that if we're still in Iraq in 2008 it's gonna be worse than 2006 was for his party.

Not to mention that even if Bush truly doesn't give a damn about his party's future, attaching conditions to new war spending bills in Congress still seems pretty plausible--probable, even.

, I strongly suspect he will use the ISG report as cover.

Seems like, if anything, refusing to implement the ISG today actually makes it harder for him to do so later--unless he does what it says today, then they'll just be there to say "I told you so" tomorrow.

The required face saving will likely come from the Iraqis--if Bush declares he wants to pull out, the Iraqi government can't very well publicly ask them to stay--no one except the Kurds would accept that of their own government. Since the Iraqis "stood up", that lets Bush pull out and wipe his hands of the mess. Or even pull out and blame the opposition for the bloody aftermath. (In which case, Bush might actually want to be forced out of Iraq--his current problem is because he has gotten every policy he has asked for that there's no one else to blame for failure.)

Posted by Consumatopia | December 19, 2006 1:44 PM

Pooh, I can assure you that McManus is not an optimist. What he believes is that only some kind of mass resistance could make a difference now. Bush has no wise advisers, there are no institutional restraints on anything he does, and he's doggedly committed to never changing his mind.

McManus doesn't believe that mass resistance is possible any more than you do. That's one reason why he believes that there's no hope. Mass resistance is impossible because shitheads like you have been indoctrinated with a lying, jokey picture of the anti-Vietnam War movement, and for you the social faux pas involved in going out in the streets far outweighs the possibility of an unwinnable WWIII.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 1:53 PM

"In which case, the name of the game for war opponents is to make it clear to Bush that if we're still in Iraq in 2008 it's gonna be worse than 2006 was for his party."

I think that's already clear to every single person in Washington of both parties, including those in the WH.

That said, I still think the most likely scenario is for Bush to retreat deeper into the bunker, maintain the current troop levels for the next two years, watch his approval numbers collapse into the 20's, and spend the rest of his life trying to make the case that the next (Democratic) President was the one who actually lost the Iraq war.

Second most likely scenario is for Bush to make a small troop withdrawal around Thanksgiving of '07 in order to get below the magic 100,000 number. The illusion of progress might be enough to save Republican prospects in '08, in which case John McCain would be able to prolong the war until 2011.

But I think Bush is much more likely to end up picking the first scenario instead of the second. It preserves their "the strategy would've worked if it had just been given more time" argument for posterity.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 2:04 PM

Petey, you have accurately described Bush's most likely political strategy.

What most of us are talking about is what's going to happen in Iraq. We expect Bush not only to continue what he's doing, but to escalate it. We worry that the situation will spin entirely out of control at some point. It hasn't been mentioned yet, but some of us fear the declaration of a state of emergency and a suspension of civil liberties.

People think that things are bad in the Middle East now. They aren't at all bad, really. Not compared to what they could be a year or two from now.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 2:09 PM

Well Emerson, tell me what my taking to the streets would accomplish? It's not that I'd be embarrassed. Like I give a fuck if someone thinks I'm a dirty hippy. But if you are calling for sacrifice, it sorta helps if you outline what is to be gained from that sacrifice.

My point is that this bitching about us damn kids not having the will to get out and do anything strikes me as something of reverse chickenhawkery. You and McManus are sitting on a computer pontificating the same as I am, so please spare me the lecture.

(Incidentally, if I've been "indoctrinated" does that make me a "shithead?" Is it really my fault if I don't know any better? Am I doomed to purgatory alongside Socrates for not knowing Christ?)

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 2:14 PM

My, aren't we all combative today.

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 2:15 PM

Pooh, considering that your original post offered nothing but snark and defeatism, you're acting awful huffy. I had no idea what age you were when I responded. IE, I treated you as an adult with whom I disagreed strongly. Your generational issues are not my concern -- really, you were apparently just age-baiting McManus, though I didn't know that.

What McManus and I are saying is that routine measures have been exhausted and that things seem likely to get much worse. "Going to the streets" is a catchall term for non-routine measures. And no, we can't guarantee success. This is last-ditch desperation stuff.

But for whatever reason, that kind of thing is ruled out for you, nothing but a joke and an item in your war on the aged.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 2:21 PM

"tell me what my taking to the streets would accomplish?"

But what can a poor boy do
Except to sing for a rock 'n' roll band
Cause in sleepy London town
There's just no place for a street fighting man

"Am I doomed to purgatory alongside Socrates for not knowing Christ?"

Interestingly, the Nazi Pope has been taking steps to eliminate that weird bit of doctrine.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 2:22 PM

Emerson, you're the one who even brought age into play. My original complaint is that McManus was making a sort of reverse Green Lantern argument. I'm not asking for a guarantee of success, I'm asking for a goal, a strategy, an end which I'm working which is defined somewhat more precisely than "victory". The problem with the Iraqi adventure is that we did none of those things. I don't see how it helps to fall into the same trap in opposing the venture:

1. Take to the streets, get arrested en masse.
2. ????
3. World peace!

So I'm being snarky, so what? I don't take being called a shithead personally, you can handle it.

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 2:36 PM

The point at which age was first raised to which I was responding is here:

My point is that this bitching about us damn kids not having the will to get out....

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 2:39 PM

No, age was first raised by you:

Mass resistance is impossible because shitheads like you have been indoctrinated with a lying, jokey picture of the anti-Vietnam War movement, and for you the social faux pas involved in going out in the streets far outweighs the possibility of an unwinnable WWIII.

But why quibble? Look, we want the same thing here, probably both see it as unlikely-to-impossible, and are throwing up our hands in dismay.

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 2:42 PM

Pooh, you were responding to a 100-word blog comment and bitching that it didn't supply a complete strategy. And you did it in an excessively snotty way.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 2:43 PM

My post said nothing about age. People of all ages have been indoctrinated, including people who were there at the time.

Posted by John Emerson | December 19, 2006 2:46 PM

I'll own up to the snottiness - though I'm not merely responding to a single blog comment, really, as I've seen both you and McManus elsewhere.

Further, under the most natural reading of your comments re: indoctrination, it is at least strongly implied that one wasn't there at the time and so has been indoctrinated.

Posted by Pooh | December 19, 2006 2:52 PM

I think that's already clear to every single person in Washington of both parties, including those in the WH.

But it wouldn't be clear if the Democrats signed on to some sort of consensus plan and therefore shared blame for the results.

spend the rest of his life trying to make the case that the next (Democratic) President was the one who actually lost the Iraq war.

I'm sure that's what he'll try, though I doubt it'd be much of a problem--anyone who buys that isn't someone who was going to vote Democratic anyway. Nonetheless, it doesn't change that you've been proven completely wrong about the Iraq Study Group.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 19, 2006 3:23 PM

"But it wouldn't be clear if the Democrats signed on to some sort of consensus plan and therefore shared blame for the results."

I'm a pretty partisan guy who thinks Democrats winning elections normally trumps pretty much everything else, but I'd happily help provide Bush with cover if it would actually wind down the Iraqi Misadventure.

As has been repeatedly said on this thread, I don't think such a choice is in the cards, but the ISG was a preliminary offer to Bush that such a deal was possible if he decided to want such a deal. And that's a good part of the reason why I think Matthew's ISG bashing is misguided.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2006 3:30 PM

-- OT: Limbo & Purgatory

The good who lived before Christ & innocent who died without Baptism were thought to be bound for Limbo. A world of happiness but without the bliss reserved for those who see God. The existence of Limbo was never a doctrinal matter. It has now been discarded.

Purgatory

Purgatory is a realm reserved for those who die imperfect. In Purgatory the sinful cleanse their souls of the stain of sin so that they may see God clearly. Many religious types dismiss Purgatory and not simply for the simony behind the selling of indulgences (c.f the Church's power to mitigate punishment for sin, as in "whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.") Hamlet's ghost, for example, seems to be an inhabitant in Purgatory. The damned would never be permitted to roam the earth.

Purgatory, I believe, is still a going concern.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 19, 2006 4:13 PM

It's the oil. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the "balance of power" and "stability" are just synonyms for "oil." Bush doesn't even realize it, in his kinky mind oil is synonymous with Saudi Arabia and the other sympathetic regimes. That's what it's about, not democracy or Iran or jihad. It's the oil, stupid. When that is unmderstood it all becomes clear.

Posted by OCPatriot | December 19, 2006 4:29 PM

It's the oil. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the "balance of power" and "stability" are just synonyms for "oil." Bush doesn't even realize it, in his kinky mind oil is synonymous with Saudi Arabia and the other sympathetic regimes. That's what it's about, not democracy or Iran or jihad. It's the oil, stupid. When that is understood it all becomes clear.

Posted by OCPatriot | December 19, 2006 4:30 PM

"But why quibble? Look, we want the same thing here, probably both see it as unlikely-to-impossible, and are throwing up our hands in dismay."

I wish I had an animated pitchfork to insert here. Which is all I am doing, not condemning or judging. I don't quite know why there is no mass movement or protests but I am certainly not expecting anyone in particular to storm Washington by themselves. I take various bloggers committment to process liberalism very seriously and with great respect and recognize the dangers, both political and practical, of abandoning it.

But I do want to remind people that there are non-liberal but moral alternative tactics available, and the sixties are probably not as good a guide as 1875-1925. Although the outcomes from that era are very definitely mixed, there are systematic methods of achieving political change that do not depend on Pelosi and Reid.

You don't have to wave your hands in the air in dismay. Brandish your pitchfork and hope the beltway sees it.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 19, 2006 5:46 PM

Not really following that pitchfork metaphor, bob. Can you unpack it a bit?

Posted by AlanC9 | December 20, 2006 7:58 AM

I'm a pretty partisan guy who thinks Democrats winning elections normally trumps pretty much everything else, but I'd happily help provide Bush with cover if it would actually wind down the Iraqi Misadventure.

The danger, though, is that in attempting to provide such cover you could actually wind up the misadventure--especially if, as it seems like we both agree, the threat of Democrats winning in '08 is the biggest leverage we have over Bush's decision making.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 20, 2006 9:57 AM

"Not really following that pitchfork metaphor, bob. Can you unpack it a bit?"

What metaphor? Ok, in my case it is actually a mattock.

Noy really in the mood to go so deep, Hobbes & Weber. The state's monopoly on violence is not a natural monopoly but a delegation of a natural right of the people in service of efficiency. Like the Post Office.

Posted by bob mcmanus | December 20, 2006 1:52 PM