« Introducing the Black Middle Class | Main | Union Busting 101 » Richardson's Iraq Ad25 Sep 2007 05:09 pm Given that progressive bloggers have thus far mostly failed to inject the "residual forces" issue into the Democratic primary campaign, I'm not sure why Bill Richardson thinks putting netroots activists in his ad attempting to raise the issue will help him, but I'm glad he's raising the issue: One fears that Richardson may have committed too many gaffes at this point to gain traction, but I hope this ad helps him and forces the other candidates to start addressing this issue. Comments (14)
I'm sympathetic to Richardson's views on residual forces, but I feel like it's become less of a policy debate and more of a purity contest. 
With all due respect matt, having some bloggers on will only remind ordinary voters why they dislike that whole east coast smarty pants approach that we take for granted on the ne corridor.
I feel like it's become less of a policy debate and more of a purity contest. You're right to feel that way. The reason Richardson put bloggers is because (as Matt alludes to) he's trying to get traction somewhere, so he's pandering to the out-of-Iraq purists in the netroots.
On the substance, "residual forces" are not the issue. On-going casualties are the issue. If half the American army could camp out in Iraq for the next 50 years as peacefully as in Korea or Bosnia, few voters (ordinary or otherwise) would really care. The question is whether we can get there from here without first getting the hell out. -- TP
The reason Richardson put bloggers is because (as Matt alludes to) he's trying to get traction somewhere, so he's pandering to the out-of-Iraq purists in the netroots. The problem is that I suspect there are actually good policy reasons for not leaving a residual force in Iraq, but it's hard to know if I'm right because the debate is increasingly about purity, pandering, and other meta issues.
Oh boy! I can't wait to BLOG about how I was on a Bill Richardson ad. Wait till the boys at Blogger hear about this!!
I agree with Matt. It's a good thing that Richardson is raising the issue. The idea that we can or should keep a residual force in Iraq doesn't seem to make any sense to me. What exactly are they going to do? Putting aside the issue of how we got into Iraq in the first place, one of the big problems we have right now is that we just do not have sufficient force to bring peace to the place. How is a residual force going to do any better? Our continued presence seems to be creating more terrorism than it's eliminating. Wouldn't a residual force just continue the perception that we have no intention of leaving? The question needs to be: if you think a residual force is a good idea, what do you expect it will accomplish, and how likely do you think it will be able to do it? I fail to see how the U.S. staying in Iraq is going to do us or the Iraqis any good, and it's important we get the candidates talking more about the issue because it seems to me there's a lot of muddled thinking about the issue, which is how we got into this problem in the first place.
The reason Richardson put bloggers is because (as Matt alludes to) he's trying to get traction somewhere, so he's pandering to the out-of-Iraq purists in the netroots. I wonder though...Of all constituencies, the netroots is the most likely to be the one informed on this issue. So in that case, it doesn't help to use bloggers in your ads, because they are essentially preaching to the converted. On the other hand, using bloggers to promote this message reinforces the view that rather than being mainstream (which it is), the out-of-Iraq constituency is solely the marginalized and nutty netroots.
Given that it's a political ad, one wouldn't expect much more discussion in it other than "it doesn't make sense." And indeed it doesn't. There is absolutely NO mission that the US could carry out in Iraq from here on out with any number of troops, small or large. Neither is there any diplomatic or humanitarian mission that could be conducted there. It's simply impossible for an American to move in Iraq without being targeted - either sooner or later. And the fact that the leading Dem candidates WILL NOT address that fact clearly shows that they really have no interest in ACTUALLY ENDING the US participation in Iraq - but merely a (political) interest in CLAIMING to do so. In other words, despite Matt's stated beliefs, Clinton, Obama and the rest - except Richardson, supposedly - will absolutely NOT end the Iraq war. They certainly can't solve any of Iraq's civil war problems, either. No one is willing to admit that the entire Iraq event has been an unmitigated failure. In the end, the US will get no oil, no peace, no influence on Iran, or anything else. Worse, when Bush attacks Iran, the US will be forced to flee Iraq - or massacre literally scores of thousands more Iraqis avoiding that result. And NONE of the Dems - including Richardson - are addressing THAT issue AT ALL.
Here I go again, off the reservation. You know, folks, the informed cohort here is supposed to be blogosphere. Now I must admit that I haven't visited each and every spot on the blogs, but there is a large issue here that every one of the bloggers has totally missed. That issue is that during the CLINTON administration a decision was made to take out Russia. (This is the "top secret" information that the legislators don't dare reveal. It is why the so-called "opposition party" is as docile as field mice. It is why the largest embassy in the world had been constructed in Baghdad, and why there are the "enduring" bases in various parts of Iraq. Keep reading.)
Then there was the attack of choice against Iraq. That was the last straw. Yeltsin was out and Putin was in. The non-governmental organizations (NGO's) which had set up shop in Russia, as they had in the other states, were ordered out. It seems that the Russians had caught on to the game. ***** Many years ago (in the mid 1970's), I worked in the oilfields offshore Louisiana and Texas. One day I went to work, and my new helper was an older man, a German fellow named Hans. I was in my late 20's and he was in his mid 50's at the time. Over the course of the next several weeks, I came to learn that Hans had been in the German 6th Army, the one that was captured at the Battle of Stalingrad. He told me that of the 2200 or so people who entered his POW camp, he was one of only about 200 who survived. He was a very interesting man to talk to, as he and his post-war wife had gone aroung the world on a ZunDapp motorcycle, with a sidecar for the wife. (He had pictures to back up his story). ***** Why do I mention this here? It is because in the last 200 years there have been at least two attempts to "take out Russia." The first was attempted by Napoleon Bonaparte. It resulted in his defeat and ultimate exile. The second was by Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. Hitler failed to conquer Russia. I think it is evident that Russia cannot be conquered, and attempts to do so are futile. I think that all countries would be better off if they all stayed in their own boundaries and let other countries take care of their own business. The alternative to this is a new arms race, at the least, or more likely, a pre-emptive strike, either by Russia or the US on the other. Not a good thing, with each side having over 4,000 nuclear weapons to unleash on the other side. War is a total loss, economically, physically and politically. Can we, supposedly intelligent people, end this madness now and forever?
I won't go so far as to say that Iraq is a total loss. However, as long as the Former Cheerleader and his daddy's SecDef run the war we have to assume they will continue to mismanage, mislead, and misappropriate. Alas, only a regime change in Washington will give me any hope for progress in this most grievous and awful war.
I agree that somebody has decided to start up another "Cold" - and eventually "hot", presumably - war with Russia AND China. The state can only exist if it has "threats" that it can frighten the children of their populations with (more precisely, the children that ARE their populations.) Clinton ALLOWED China to steal US nuclear secrets because it was clear that China was little nuclear threat to us at the moment and needed to have their nuclear program stimulated in order to appear to be a credible threat in twenty or thirty years. In other words, when China becomes a significant ECONOMIC threat to the US, they must appear to be a credible MILITARY threat in order to justify starting a war against them. Thus, all the Pentagon noise about Taiwan and the "growth of China's military." Not to mention that the Pentagon - and the war profiteers it issues contracts to - stand to gain from all this. And the politicians on both sides of the aisle whose campaign contributions and bribes come from those war profiteers. The same is true of Russia. All the nonsense about putting a missile defense system in Eastern Europe because of Iran is just ridiculous. Nobody with a brain could believe that justification. Putin is clearly FAR more intelligent than Bush or any other politician in the United States. As a former KGB officer, he also is clearly a realist - and also knows how to get up-to-date intelligence. So he knows what is going on. He chased out the Russian Jewish oligarchs - and they went to Israel and England and are now orchestrating all this nonsense about "Russian assassinations of dissidents." In fact, personally I think we should run Putin for President in 2008 on an independent ticket - with British Minister of Parliament George Galloway as the Vice Presidential candidate. At least we'd get two smart, articulate politicians in power instead of the greedy morons we have now or the nitwits being offered up by the two US political parties. Either that or we might as well go whole hog for tyranny and elect General Zod. Why bother with wimps like Hillary or Obama when we can have a REAL "ruler"? Most of the right wing nitwits here and in the US population would be positively delirious about "kneeling before Zod." They're already kneeling before Bush - which is a really sorry spectacle.
Is this how desperate Richardson is?
Comments closed October 09, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't know who Matt Stoller is - I think he made that pretty funny comment about Petraeus the other day? - but he seems like a bit of a buffoon in this ad. Leaving some number of troops behind doesn't make any sense? Not even to train Iraqis or protect the border...? Not even to look for aqi...? I think there's some sense to such ideas.
Posted by berger | September 25, 2007 5:19 PM