Strategery

I find myself dispirited by The Washington Post's account of what Michael Cohen rightly derides as the Democrats' "Rodney King strategy" on Iraq legislation. Simply put, acknowledging that they don't have the votes to overcome a GOP filibuster, Democrats are looking to get pragmatic and forge compromise language that might pass the Senate.

Getting pragmatic and trying to forge compromise language that might pass the Senate is, in general, something I'm inclined to support.

But in this instance, the sticking point is that Republicans won't support anything that makes Bush do anything to end the war. They want bills that somehow suggest troop withdrawals without making anything happen. But there's nothing "pragmatic" about compromising on those terms. Ideally, Democrats could secure Republican support for a bill to tie the president's hands, and thus start ending the war. But if Democrats can't do that, what they need to do is make their Republican opponents pay a price in 2008. The worst thing imaginable would be for Democrats and vulnerable Republicans alike to join hands in passing a meaningless bill that does nothing but give political cover to members of congress who, when the rubber was hitting the road, did nothing but insist on a blank check for the president.

Comments

All too true--and even if the Dems force multiple votes on stiffer measures against our Iraq involvement to make GOP Reps show their true pro-war colors in anticipation of election season, endangered GOP Reps in swing districts will be able to pick off tactical "yes" votes with the help of savvy GOP vote-counters, all the while knowing that the safer GOP Reps can keep the insurrection well shy of veto-proof levels. We're in for a year of temporizing, grandstanding, and political fakery of all descriptions. But no progress. No way.

Posted by elle loco | September 13, 2007 4:42 PM

It’s quite simple really: just stop funding the war. The appropriate negotiating posture for the democrats is: Not another dime, unless it’s to fund a withdrawal. That’s the only legislation we’re willing to put forth. You in the administration want to propose a new funding bill to keep the war going for another FU? Fine. Send it over and let’s have an up or down vote. If you can get it through both houses, good luck and we’ll see you next November. If you don’t have the votes, then you’re going to have to start figuring out how to pay for this thing some other way. Anything less than this is weak and stupid.

Posted by pinson | September 13, 2007 4:44 PM

This war could be ended tomorrow. It could happen without the assistance of any legislator or judge or even the President himself. Unfortunately our citizens don't mind being led by criminals so it won't happen. U.S. soldiers should simply refuse to further serve. Walk away. Don't enlist. It is becoming ever more difficult to care what happens to a person that volunteers service in the employ of a genocidal madman. Yes, what is happening to Iraqis is deplorable. Maybe after Bush hanged their plight could be improved. But for now at least on our side of the ledger the deaths we suffer are suffered by those willingly entered in a criminal conspiracy. An undeclared preemptive war started by the telling of demonstrable lies. Who volunteers to join such an atrocity? Certainly no one deserving of our concern or care.

Posted by steve duncan | September 13, 2007 4:44 PM

how about Obama's statements on the subject?

Posted by Armando | September 13, 2007 4:45 PM

The Democrats are planning to beat the Republican opposition with nightsticks?

I agree with Michael Cohen: that's a terrible idea.

Posted by Brock | September 13, 2007 4:51 PM

"Simply put, acknowledging that they don't have the votes to overcome a GOP filibuster"

What are you talking about? The Dems don't have to overcome a GOP filibuster. It is the GOP that has to overcome a potential Dem filibuster.

It would take only 41 Senators to end the war funding.

What you should have said is this: "Simply put, acknowledging that they don't have the courage to filibuster, ..."

Posted by dogfacegeorge | September 13, 2007 5:05 PM

The war funding vote already happened. Bush has the money.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 13, 2007 5:16 PM

and even if bush didn't have "the money," anyone who thinks that he'd let a little something like lack of congressional funding get in the way hasn't been paying attention to the unitary executive, commander-in-chief trumps all.

that is to say, even if there were a veto-proof level of votes, the war still wouldn't stop. does everyone by now think bush cares about constitutional norms?

which isn't to say that the idea - the very senatorial idea - that something (a useless bill with a few republican votes) is better than nothing isn't an exceedingly idotic strategy for the dems (and one that obama and clinton ought to reject as idiotic)....

Posted by howard | September 13, 2007 5:21 PM

Joe Biden's breathless capitulation represents the epitomy of my disappointment with certain feckless democrats in Congress.

"We don't have the power to break the GOP filibuster." Fuck the filibuster. Exert the power you have as a simple majority in order to force compromise. George gets no money until the troops and the country get a date certain. Period.

Those in fear of being perceived as not supporting the troops need to borrow a set, and a brain. Petraeus said only yesterday that he did not know whether the occupation in Iraq made Americans safer. No military mission to accomplish in Iraq, you say. Then show the troops how much you support them by refusing to allow George to continue to waste our most precious assets: our sons and daughter serving our country.

Posted by sy | September 13, 2007 5:26 PM

This equivocating crap doen't make me happy either:

"Democrats say they may also be more willing to try to attach conditions to coming Pentagon spending requests. (Democrats have been reluctant to limit money for the war unilaterally.) “I think the American people are getting tired of sending the money with no end in sight,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/13policy.html?ref=washington

Posted by sy | September 13, 2007 5:45 PM

The war funding vote already happened. Bush has the money.

So if the Democrats pass a budget with $0 for the Iraq war, everyone will be happy right?

Of course not. Bush doesn't have the money to continue his war indefinitely. That's what we're arguing over now. Bush wants another $200 billion. The Democrats need to say no. They shouldn't pass any bill without a specific end game.

I'm with dogfacegeorge. All we need is 41 Senators willing to filibuster a bad bill. This argument that Harry Reid needs 67 votes to accomplish anything is nonsense.

Posted by Jinchi | September 13, 2007 5:51 PM

Matt,

Just a couple of weeks ago the WaPo reported that Bush will ask for an additional $50B this month. That is, now. 41 Dems should just say no.

Posted by dogfacegeorge | September 13, 2007 6:21 PM

I'm with dogface - that's what I was referring to also, the fact that Bush is supposed to propose more funding soon. Reid and Pelosi need to wake up. Trying to find some kind of middle ground with benchmarks and timelines is a losing proposition.
It's the GOP's war. Let them try to move it forward. The smart bargaining position is allow the president to propose funding on his terms. Let the republicans put together a bill and allow it to come to a vote. It'll never pass. When that bill fails, let them submit another one. I guess they're just too petrified that Katie Couric might say mean things about them.

Posted by pinson | September 13, 2007 7:12 PM

fucking senate club. reid and co need to name names. every one of the republicans in the senate must pay. they are keeping this atrocity going. they must pay!

Posted by chris | September 13, 2007 7:35 PM

Since when have Democrats ever voted for a reduction in government spending? If the Democrats really wanted to save American lives and money, they'd oppose mass illegal immigration.

Posted by Larkham | September 13, 2007 7:45 PM

What is so scary about a GOP filibuster? I don't understand. Can someone help me out, how does it hurt Democrats to push legislation that a majority of the public agree with? I agree with Lynn Woolsey. We should mount primary challenges against anyone unwilling to take immediate action to end this war.

Posted by Just Karl | September 13, 2007 7:50 PM

What is so scary about a GOP filibuster? I don't understand.

No one in the world outside DC does. You'll have to write your Congressman to get an answer.

Don't expect it to make sense, though.

Posted by Jinchi | September 13, 2007 8:10 PM

At this point, I'm all for the Democrats to keep funding the war, but simply attach a rider to the appropriations that Bush can't use any taxpayer money to attact yet another country.

Or a sense of Congress resolution saying that Bush is not authorized to use US forces to attack anywhere without express Congressional approval.

We lost on Iraq, folks. Time to prepare for the next battle.

Posted by Ed | September 13, 2007 10:57 PM

Ahem.

Where does the war spending bill money go?

To Democratic constituents and to Republican constituents.

Right?

So what Democratic Congressman is going to call up his local defense industry CEOs and say, "You aren't getting any military contracts until the war in Iraq is over - at which point you won't get ANY military contracts."

Right.

Email me when this happens.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "Dems are weak", or "Dems are afraid of the Repubs" or "Dems are scared of being called traitors".

It has to do with MONEY. Tax money allocation, bribes and campaign contributions. Period.

Oh, and POWER.

By screwing even the people who VOTED for them, the Democrats prove to themselves that they have POWER.

It's that simple.

You think these clowns are in Washington to represent YOU?

What planet are you living on?

Suckers.

And what difference does it make if they cut off funding for the Iraq war just to score some cheap political points over the Republicans for the 2008 elections when Bush can simply start a REAL hot war in Iran and start getting hundreds or thousands of US troops killed for real? What will the Democrats do then? Cut off funding for THAT war?

In what universe?

If the Democrats had ANY concept of what is going on and any real CONCERN over what is going on - that is, if they actually had representing YOU as an option and a real concern for the United States - they not only would cut off funding for the Iraq war, they would immediately impeach Bush and Cheney and would immediately pass legislation preventing any further war in Iran.

Does ANYBODY here see ANY of that happening? Has ANYBODY in the Democratic establishment even DISCUSSED any of that happening?

Get real.

So what are we talking about here? How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 11:05 PM

You all might want to check Kevin Drum & Kos & Dodd on this - they've plotted out strategy a bit further than Matt (sorry, Matt).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012060.php

Democrats can ALMOST stop the war, but only by tying funding to a bill that Bush CAN'T VETO FOREVER (like the DOD budget). We only need a simple majority to play that game.

But... the Democrats don't quite have the votes and it is dangerous (remember when Newt shut down the gov't?).

To quote a really good post on that that thread, the Dem's cautious approach is politically spot-on. "People want out, they'll likely vote D."

As that post also points out, meanwhile the war is killing people to no good end.

It is the first law of politics - when your opponent is self-immolating, don't get in the way. For all their wimpiness (as decried by Left Blogistan (and me, by the way) our elected Dem leaders are playing this game rather well.

Infuriatingly cautious, but quite canny.

Before you all attack, I will vote for Dodd or Richardsonor anyone else who will get us out of that friggin' hellhole ASAP. I KNOW the war is wrong and sometimes you have to do waht is right. Just saying.....

Posted by tomtom | September 13, 2007 11:24 PM

You all might want to check Kevin Drum & Kos & Dodd on this - they've plotted out strategy a bit further than Matt (sorry, Matt).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012060.php

Democrats can ALMOST stop the war, but only by tying funding to a bill that Bush CAN'T VETO FOREVER (like the DOD budget). We only need a simple majority to play that game.

But... the Democrats don't quite have the votes and it is dangerous (remember when Newt shut down the gov't?).

To quote a really good post on that that thread, the Dem's cautious approach is politically spot-on. "People want out, they'll likely vote D."

As that post also points out, meanwhile the war is killing people to no good end.

It is the first law of politics - when your opponent is self-immolating, don't get in the way. For all their wimpiness (as decried by Left Blogistan (and me, by the way) our elected Dem leaders are playing this game rather well.

Infuriatingly cautious, but quite canny.

Before you all attack, I will vote for Dodd or Richardson or anyone else who will get us out of that friggin' hellhole ASAP. I KNOW the war is wrong and sometimes you have to do waht is right. Just saying.....

Posted by tomtom | September 13, 2007 11:25 PM

The problem with tomtom's notion is precisely that the Dems are playing this for narrow political points over the Republicans in 2008. (As well as, as I said above, for their own piece of the corruption pie in terms of war profiteering.)

Like I said, however, Bush can derail that at any moment by starting a war in Iran.

And the Dems are doing NOTHING about that. So if they were REALLY concerned about the political opportunities present, they'd be doing something about Bush and Cheney and stopping the Iraq war and preventing the Iran war.

But they aren't doing ANY of that.

So where's the "canniness"? Where is the smarts? Point to to something that is smart about this situation.

It's just the Dems selling the US public down the river for political advantage. That's all it is.

People who keep reducing this whole mess to some cheap ass political maneuvering between Karl Rove on one side and the DLCC on the other just don't get it.

BOTH sides are screwing US! And they are doing it DELIBERATELY for reasons that are only tangential to the political maneuvering being done to see who benefits the MOST from WHAT is being done.

WHAT is being done is the problem - NOT the political maneuvering to see who benefits most from what is being done.

Get that through your heads, please. You CANNOT support the political maneuvering while allowing WHAT is being done to BE done!

To put it "country simple", as William Burroughs would say, focus on stopping the war and preventing more war - not on whether the Dems are getting some political points over the Republicans for the 2008 elections.

Either that, or admit that you have NO influence on the Democrats - and just stop talking about it as if there was ANY chance of stopping the war.

And again, what's being done to stop the war on Iran?

Nothing. The Democrats explicitly rejected preventing Bush from starting one. Explicitly.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 13, 2007 11:51 PM

OK, I'm an ignoramus. Kevin Drum explains it all here...

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012060.php

Posted by pinson | September 13, 2007 11:59 PM

Richard Hack,
Can you give a link to illuminate what you mean when you say "The Democrats explicitly rejected preventing Bush from starting one. Explicitly"?

It seems to me your whole argument is somehow pinned to Iran, so I am curious to see what you are talking about.

BTW, the Dems don't quite have the votes to stop the (Iraq) War, so it isn't so heinous to play for position. If you can't force Bush's hand playing for position may be distasteful but is defensible.

Posted by tomtom | September 14, 2007 12:14 AM

I'd say Kevin Drum is an ignoramus...

"Basically, Democrats have two choices: (a) muster the votes for a bill that funds the Pentagon but defunds the war and then dare Bush to veto it, or (b) refuse to pass anything, which effectively defunds the Pentagon completely without even forcing Bush to risk a veto. Option A is what we did earlier this year, and its success depends on whether we can keep our own caucus together and find a Republican senator or two to side with us for several votes in a row. Pretty unlikely. Option B is electoral suicide."

I don't see either option as a problem. If it's "unlikely" that the Dems can keep Lieberman from joining the Republicans OR find one Republican to support them, then obviously it's pointless to talk about option A at all.

As for option B being "electoral suicide", WHY? The public elected the Dems to stop the war. If they can't stop the war by option A - because of Democratic traitors like Lieberman and the cowardice of the Republican critics of the war - then why is it so hard for the Democrats to say this to the public and point out that option B is the only way to do it?

So the Pentagon gets defunded. SO WHAT? Does anybody believe this country will be immediately defenseless? That the Chinese will invade? That the Republicans could even make that argument without sounding like idiots?

The POINT of option B is to stop the war by the only means possible.

Not being willing to do that merely means, as I've said, that the Democrats are selling the public down the river for cheap political points over the Republicans in 2008.

By which time, it will be too late to stop Bush from starting the Iran war.

So, yes, everybody who thinks the Dems CAN'T stop the war are ignoramuses.

They do not WANT to stop the war - either because they approve of it and/or because they want to USE it to win over the Republicans in 2008, regardless of what it does to the US troops, Iraqi civilians and US taxpayer in the meantime.

It's that simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 12:19 AM

"Can you give a link to illuminate what you mean when you say "The Democrats explicitly rejected preventing Bush from starting one. Explicitly"?"

As I recall, there was a bill presented earlier this year - for Iraq war funding, I believe - that had an amendment tacked on it that explicitly required Bush to go to Congress to get authorization for any military action against Iran.

The Republicans complained, The Democrats pulled it.

There was no political cost to the Democrats to fight for that amendment. Most of the US public does not want war with Iran and doesn't trust Bush to handle one.

So the Democrats explicitly accepted the notion that Bush does not need to go to Congress to get authorization for military actions against Iran.

It's actually not that relevant any more, because as I said, Bush has now changed the terms of engagement. It's no longer the Iranian nuclear program that is the issue, it is "Iranians killing US soldiers in Iraq" that is the "causus belli" for Bush and Cheney.

And Bush doesn't particularly need Congressional authorization to pursue Iranians from Iraq into Iran - whether true or not. And no Democrat is going to refuse him that authority any way.

So it's a moot point now. The war in Iran is on and the Democrats could only stop it by explicitly preventing Bush from doing cross-border operations into Iran as well as preventing him from unilaterally initiating any military actions against Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 12:26 AM

Richard Hack,
Umm, you have good reason to be angry, but jeebus, you are among friends.

I could be misunderstanding, but Kevin's option b) means that the Democrats, as the Majority party, do not put ANYTHING up to a vote, effectively entering into a high-stakes game of chicken with Bush.

I'm a little less confident than you are that this can be "explained" to the public. Most people just aren't political enough to follow such maneuvers.

Settng that aside, I'm not sure it would work at all. I'm not positive about the Senate rules, but my impression is that Dems are the majority party only because Bernie Sanders (I) and Joe Lieberman (I) are caucusing with the Dems. If we do an all-in showdown with Bush over Iraq won't we lose these two independents to the Republicans? Then who controls the Seante?

Chicken is a game you play only if you are sure you will win because the loser DIES.

Posted by tomtom | September 14, 2007 1:29 AM

Richard Hack,
No links on your assertion? And it isn't relevant anyway? Shooting yourself in the foot there, bud.

I'm worried as hell Bush will attack Iran, but I don't see a case that the Dems have the votes to force Bush's hand on that one either.

Posted by tomtom | September 14, 2007 1:35 AM

Those who continue to predict an imminent war with Iraq have little evidence to support that claim except a barrage of empty rhetoric from people like Cheney and Lieberman. The Pentagon already lacks the capacity to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan at current levels past next spring, much less launch a whole new war. If by "war" they mean a series of airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets, even that would be difficult to sustain due to rising demands to supply U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan by air. (It seems ground conveys are far too vulnerable to attack). An air offensive would be ineffectual due to the dispersion of Iranian nuclear "assets," and it would create risks of major blowback in Iraq.

The specter of a war on Iran appears may be an effective way to raise our national blood pressure and distract us from Iraq, but the administration would have to be quite insane to commit to such a thing.

Actually, uhm, the administration is insane. Nonetheless, the Iran war ain't gonna happen unless something drastic and unforeseeable occurs, followed by a major military mobilization in the U.S. Everything else is bluster.

Posted by Geaghan | September 14, 2007 1:42 AM

Geaghan,
You are painting with a bit of a broad brush when you claim we don't have the resources to bomb Iraq. We've got plenty of planes and we've got plenty of bombs. Such an attack doesn't have to be "sustained". It can be simple hit & run.

As for your broader claim that Bushco may be crazy, but they aren't THAT crazy... I hope you're right man. I hope you're right.

Posted by tomtom | September 14, 2007 1:53 AM

I'm not positive about the Senate rules, but my impression is that Dems are the majority party only because Bernie Sanders (I) and Joe Lieberman (I) are caucusing with the Dems. If we do an all-in showdown with Bush over Iraq won't we lose these two independents to the Republicans?

You're worried about Bernie Sanders? Sanders is one of the most liberal members of the Senate. In fact, when the rubber stamp Iraq supplemental bill came up last May, Bernie Sanders was one of 14 Senators voting against it.

37 Democrats voted for George Bush's $100 billion blank check.

Posted by Jinchi | September 14, 2007 3:00 AM

The specter of a war on Iran appears may be an effective way to raise our national blood pressure and distract us from Iraq

A war on Iran would distract us from the war in Iraq in the same way that setting yourself on fire would distract you from a gunshot wound.

Posted by Jinchi | September 14, 2007 3:05 AM

Tomtom writes: "We've got plenty of planes and we've got plenty of bombs. Such an attack doesn't have to be "sustained". It can be simple hit & run."

Sure, but a "hit & run" would accomplish next to nothing militarily, though would appall and alienate the few people around the world who aren't already appalled and alienated by this administration.

The Iranians, among others, learned a lesson from the 1981 Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak: decentralize your program to avoid having it demolished in a single raid. It would take more than few aerial attacks to compromise Iran's dispersed nuclear facilities. Besides, many sites are underground and impervious to conventional bombs, and there aren't enough "bunker buster" munitions to complete the job.

While it's true that there are plenty of planes in the Middle East, a prolonged aerial campaign against Iran would have to be resupplied from the U.S. with transport aircraft that are already badly needed for logistical support in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Iran war is a nonstarter, at least for now. (I wish I could say that with more confidence, but that's my strong impression to date.)

Posted by Geaghan | September 14, 2007 4:42 AM

"No links on your assertion?"

If you don't remember the Iraq funding bill and the controversy over the Iran provision, it's not my fault.

Do your own Google search. I'm not your research assistant.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 6:02 AM

"I'm a little less confident than you are that this can be "explained" to the public. Most people just aren't political enough to follow such maneuvers."

No, but you think they can follow the "we're going to compromise forever until the Republicans bend over" concept?

Amazing.

What's so hard about the Dem saying, "We can't get anything passed to stop the war directly because the Republicans won't let us, but we CAN stop the funding of the war in the following manner"?

One sentence - not hard to follow.

You're just reaching for excuses to continue the war and absolve the Democrats for acquiescing in continuing the war. It's that simple.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 6:06 AM

"The Iran war is a nonstarter, at least for now. (I wish I could say that with more confidence, but that's my strong impression to date.)"

Your "strong impression" is the result of massive ignorance of what is going on.

First of all, as I've said repeatedly here, the Iranian nuclear program is no longer the "causus belli" of the Bush-Cheney plan. As General Petraeus testimony this week showed, it is now the notion that Iran is behind the Iraq insurgency that is the concept.

While an attack on Iran will undoubtedly include attacks on its nuclear energy infrastructure, that will just be part of a major regime change assault. The planning for that has already been acknowledged by sources in the Administration, as reported in recent weeks.

Second, anybody who thinks an Iranian campaign is going to be simply a two-week "hit and run" air war is a complete idiot with no notion of how the Iranians can retaliate and how this could quickly escalate into a ground war - or more precisely, a ground guerrilla war similar to what Hizballah inflicted on the Israelis last summer.

The effects in Iraq ALONE will be a major disaster for the US forces there. Between the infiltrated Iranian agents and IRGC forces already in Iraq - according to Colonel Pat Lang, they could number as high as 100,000 (a number I think is overstated, but not impossible) - and the Shia militia who would like nothing better than to trash the US forces in Iraq, the US stands an excellent change of not only being defeated in Iraq, but of being DECIMATED ("decimation" in military terms means losing one out of 10 effectives - essentially 13,000-16,000 casualties) before being forced to evacuate the country under fire.

Third, how many times do I have to remind you who deny the possibility of this war that Bush and Cheney DO NOT GIVE A SHIT whether they are "enough troops" for this war. They didn't have enough troops for Iraq and they STILL don't care! What part of that are you people utterly incapable of comprehending?

Christ, a five year old can see what is going down here, but apparently the ignorant US public can not.

We have the EXACT same run up to a war that we experienced in 2002 and 2003. We have an exact prediction from Zbiegnew as to how it will go down - benchmark failures, putting the blame on the Iranians, "provocations", and finally "defensive military measure" followed by all-out war - and Bush is following it to the letter. We are already up to the stage of "defensive military measures" with the sending of US troops to the Iranian border to supposedly "interdict Iranian weapons smugglers."

We have an Air Force and Navy gung ho to start an attack on Iran - except for Admiral Fallon, commander of CENTCOM, who has said he will quit rather than lead that operation. Which means he is not long for uniform...

It does not MATTER that neither the Air Force, nor the Navy, nor US ground forces can defeat Iran. Bush and Cheney DO NOT CARE about that. The goal is to destabilize Iran for the benefit of Israel and the neocon fantasies about "American Empire" and to attempt to seize and hold the Khuzestan oil fields, just as the Iraq war was about destabilizing Iraq for the benefit of Israel and the neocon fantasies of "American Empire" and seizing the oil in Iraq.

The utter failure of that program in Iraq is clear to all. Do you see Bush pulling out? Do you see ANY admission of failure on the part of this administration?

So what makes any of you think Bush and Cheney are just "blustering"? I'll tell you - your own inability to deal with the truth.

Bush and Cheney know that if a major war starts in Iran, they will ask for and GET a draft. So there are your troops. It doesn't matter that they won't get those troops for a year or two years - they can drag the war out for as long as they want. They've DONE that already with Iraq!

I mean, are you people just fucking STUPID or what?

You just can't handle the fact that you are IMPOTENT against Bush and Cheney starting yet ANOTHER war when the one they've already started is beyond saving. So you deny it can happen.

It's called "Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance." Look it up.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 6:25 AM

Just found a Trita Parsi article on "The American Conservative" site that says pretty much the same thing - even if we get of Bush and Cheney, there's no guarantee that a Democratic administration will not go right on fomenting a war with Iran:

Long Division
http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_10/article3.html

"The war drums have been beating for so long in Washington that the neocons’ sensationalist predictions about Iranian designs have become part of the background noise. Few raise their eyebrows when they hear of Vice President Cheney’s behind-the-scenes maneuverings to win approval for military strikes or of Senator Lieberman’s echoing of Israeli estimates of Tehran’s shrinking distance to the mythical nuclear point of no return, after which Iran’s ayatollahs will allegedly begin splitting atoms.

But as the calls for war have continued, the American public—and Beltway pundits—have grown increasingly numb to the continued risk of military confrontation.

The cry-wolf effect has created a false sense of security in which the likelihood of military action is erroneously judged to be decreasing due to America’s predicament in Iraq and the exodus of key neoconservatives from the administration. According to the conventional wisdom, for every neocon evicted from the White House—David Wurmser being the latest—the hand of the pro-war faction weakens and the risk for war fades. If the neoconservatives fail to drag the U.S. into war with Iran during the remainder of George W. Bush’s presidency, the reasoning goes, the next president—Republican or Democrat—will be able to address the Iranian challenge through more constructive, non-military means.

Though war with Iran is sure to make the Iraq War look like the cakewalk its advocates promised, the belief that the risk diminishes with time rests on the precarious assumption that the primary drivers are specific individuals in the neoconservative circle around this vice president."

Read the article - the point is that there is more involved here than just the Iranian nuclear program. And Parsi - as a "Serious Person" - doesn't even discuss the oil issue or Israel per se.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 6:50 AM

The problem is that nobody on our side has offered a comprehensive strategy to end the war. Offering a veto bill and having nothing to fall back on but capitulation is just not effective.

We could offer a bill that will raise a filibuster and pump it up as something that will likely be filibustered by Republicans (move the focus to the party instead of Bush and show them to be tied to the war)

After the filibuster we could offer a slightly more palatable bill that might get through. Again pump this as removing some of what they find objectionable but your not sure they won't block it.

Then we get down to a bill similar to the one presented before the supplemental a few months back. If we think it will get to the POTUS desk, then we pump it as a great compromise with those obstructionist republicans.

When that gets vetoed, we offer another bill that is likely to be filibustered and start the routine again.

To every "support the troops" attack we reply that we need to focus on the national security impact of destroying our military in a civil war when we have a war on terror to fight.

To every "war on terror" attack we reply the same exchanging "we have a war on terror to fight" with "we have a real war on terror to fight"

I know this is a bit simplistic but we need a similar robust strategy here.

Posted by Fr33d0m | September 14, 2007 9:32 AM

"What is so scary about a GOP filibuster? I don't understand. Can someone help me out, how does it hurt Democrats to push legislation that a majority of the public agree with? "

I heard Eleanor Holmes Norton explain the theory this morning.

If the house passes a bill that the Senate Republicans don't like, It will get fillibustered. Democratic representitives in Republican districts will have the proposed bill used against them, and no bill will be passed anyway. They see this as risk with no possible reward.

What she didn't mention is that the war is very unpopular. I think Democratic leaders think that they won those seats because of Republican corruption rather than the war. I think that's crap. We didn't win Duke Cunningham's seat. I think the leadership would rather protect one or two seats than lose them and pick up a dozen other seats.

Even if the Republicans could make hay out of this issue, there are bills that can be pushed to make them look bad. Make them fillibuster a bill that demands progress in Iraq. That way, they oppose progress in Iraq. Jim Webb has something along these lines - an amendment demanding equal tours stateside with their Iraq tour, and one year/3 years for guard and reserve, but it is a pretty small step. The Republicans oppose it anyway, because the welfare of the troops is less important to them than George Bush's pride.

Posted by Njorl | September 14, 2007 10:25 AM

Mr. Hack's rambling invective provides many additional reasons why the administration won't attack Iran. As he says (and I also said), a "hit & run" campaign won't accomplish much militarily, either against an Iranian nuclear program or (as he says) against elements that support the Iraqi insurgency. We can never rule out the possibility that this administration will do something totally insane, like attempting "regime change" in Teheran, but the greater likelihood is that military and political realities will inhibit crazies like Cheney and Lieberman.

If you think a draft is a realistic possibility in the near future--absent another major attack on the U.S.--you're simply not paying attention.

There simply aren't enough boots to put on the ground in Iran, and that'll be the case for the foreseeable future. While it's useful for the administration to appear unpredictable and dangerous--as Nixon and Kissinger understood in 1972 when they bombed Haiphong--there are too many military constraints on its freedom of action. Just look it up, Mr. Hack.

Posted by Geaghan | September 14, 2007 1:56 PM

Point by point, you're totally wrong - and not merely wrong, but deluded.

"We can never rule out the possibility that this administration will do something totally insane, like attempting "regime change" in Teheran"

No shit...

"but the greater likelihood is that military and political realities will inhibit crazies like Cheney and Lieberman."

Right - like they're being inhibited in Iraq. Go around town with blinders on much? Hope you don't drive that way...

"If you think a draft is a realistic possibility in the near future--absent another major attack on the U.S.--you're simply not paying attention."

I did not say it would be politically popular. I said it would happen. If the US is in a hot war with Iran, and as you say, this is completely impossible to win with the strained military we have today, just what do you expect the Democrats to do? Say, "Okay, we don't want a draft, so we'll let all the US troops in Iran die - OR we'll just pull out and have a massive face-destroying defeat."

Right. Email me when this happens.

You just don't get it. Once Bush starts the war, and Iran is killing US troops, you don't think the same thirty to forty percent of morons who support Bush NOW aren't going to support the notion of a draft in order to "win the war against Iran."?

What are you smoking?

"There simply aren't enough boots to put on the ground in Iran, and that'll be the case for the foreseeable future."

Yes - and once the war is on, what is the US going to do about that? Your ASSUMPTION is that the mere fact of there not being a big enough military is going to stop it. MY assumption is that Bush will start the war, then ask for a bigger military.

There have plenty of people - including Obama, IIRC - who have recommended a more or less modest increase in the military to deal with the present two wars. What do you think will happen when a third and much LARGER war happens?

The bottom line: either the Democrats grow a spine and stop at least Iraq and Iran - or they don't.

Show me a Democratic spine, please - anywhere.

"While it's useful for the administration to appear unpredictable and dangerous--as Nixon and Kissinger understood in 1972 when they bombed Haiphong--there are too many military constraints on its freedom of action. Just look it up, Mr. Hack."

Just look at your CURRENT news. That is what the CURRENT administration looks like. Bush is not Nixon, and Condi Rice - let alone Cheney - is not Kissinger. Pardon me for ignoring your irrelevant history lesson.

Not to mention that you are ignoring not just rhetoric and policy statements from everybody in charge, but you are also overlooking the very real operational plans and deployments which are taking place which clearly show an intent to expand the war into Iran at a moment's notice.

And that ignorance is just stupid.

You're simply in a severe state of denial - that or deliberately denying the reality for your own motivations.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 14, 2007 9:26 PM

Mr. Hack's argument goes something like this: once Iranians start killing U.S. troops there will an outpouring of support for a draft and mobilization to accomplish regime change in Teheran, followed by an invasion. The problem with this scenario is that it would be many months before a draft or even an aggressive mobilization would produce enough troops to actually invade Iran.

The attack on Iraq in 2003 required a force of about 248,000. If you assume that an invasion of Iran would require at least as many troops, where would they come from? Iran's military has been weakened by sanctions and a lack of spare parts, but Iraq was far more vulnerable to regime change. Iran has nearly three times Iraq's population and it takes up three times as much space. An invasion, not to mention a U.S. occupation, would be stoutly resisted across the country despite the unpopularity of the regime. A much, much larger force--perhaps 750,000 troops--would be required and, as I said, that force simply is not available. Even if the political will existed in the U.S., it would take many months, maybe a year or more, to recruit, train and transport a suitable invasion force. And there would be no talk of a "coalition" to invade Iran.

Iran and the rest of the world obviously recognize these realities, even if a few crazies in D.C. don't.

On one point we'd probably agree: any hint of war with Iran from the administration or congress should be denounced immediately and loudly. Seymour Hersh and a few other journalists have done some fine preemptive work in outing plans to attack Iran. My concern is that hysteria about war with Iran will be a distraction from Iraq and the growing need to impeach the Bush/Cheney cabal.

As for the ad hominem insults, I see no point in responding. Besides, the rest of Matt's readers seem to have given up on this thread.

Posted by Geaghan | September 15, 2007 4:09 AM