« Against Caucuses | Main | Inevitable »

Don't Worry

13 Feb 2008 09:08 am

John McCain says that "anyone who worries about how long we're in Iraq does not understand the military." On the contrary, it seems to me that McCain doesn't understand diplomacy, Iraq, foreign policy, strategy, the concept of limited resources, or just about anything else. In the short-term, the McCain plan for open-ended warfare in Iraq costs lives, money, and carries enormous political costs and opportunity costs in terms of what the United States can do around the world. In the long-term, McCainite visions for a perpetual US military presence in Iraq fuel skepticism of US motives in that country and are a key driving force behind anti-American violence.

McCain even goes so far as to directly compare his vision of Iraq to the current situation in Kuwait, where in exchange for basing rights and oil we help prop up an unaccountable and corrupt dictatorship. Fear that this is what we're aiming for in Iraq is precisely why many Iraqis are fighting so hard against our troops, and our habit of acting this way in other Gulf states is a major driving force of anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world. The Bush administration has at least had the good sense to pursue this agenda quietly and in secret, but hot-head McCain can't keep his mouth shut to avoid gaffes and can't stop digging now that he realizes he's in a hole.

Share This

Comments (97)

This is why McCain won't be the formidable candidate some fear he is. His anger-management problem, logorrhea, and tendency to brag about his support for things even the Bush Administration is smart enough not to talk about openly, will sink him like a rock. Not to mention that Obama is looking like our nominee, and he'll hang McCain with his own rope far more deftly than Hillary ever could. He made a very good start in his speech last night.

"McCain can't keep his mouth shut to avoid gaffes"

It's only a gaffe if Fred Hiatt and Cokie Roberts say it is.

Well, I certainly agree that McCain's position is both extremely stupid and extremely unpopular.

Therefore, I'd think that Obama should make the promise of a very rapid and completely guaranteed full American withdrawal from Iraq the absolute centerpiece of his current primary campaign. Since this would hugely appeal to about 85% of all the Democratic primary voters and totally refute the claim that he's just a vague "feel good" candidate, it would surely nail down his likely victory, and set the perfect stage for a decisive national campaign against McCain.

Can't possibly imagine why he won't do it...

Can't possibly imagine why he won't do it...

Perhaps because he doesn't think that is the best plan for getting out of Iraq? Most Democratic primary voters wouldn't favor an inflexible "rapid withdrawal" either. Meanwhile, in the real world, the candidate who promises to be out of Iraq in one or two years will fare much better than the candidate who promises to stay for a hundred years.

The Bush administration has at least had the good sense to pursue this agenda quietly and in secret

What, exactly, makes it a secret? The fact that Dana Perino lies about it to the press corps' face? I don't think this is fooling any Muslims at all.

The more I read of Matt's comments, the more convinced I am that he should stick to topics that he knows something about. Iraq clearly isn't one of them. "...precisely why many Iraqis are fighting so hard against our troops." Really? What's Matt's source on this, antiwar.com?

Precisely HOW MANY Iraqis are "fighting so hard against US troops"? Not very many by any remotely credible account. Quite a few are fighting against other Iraqis in an attempt to grab power for their immediate small groups, but it's far from clear how many of them actually want us out in more than theoretical terms. Ditto for the neighboring states.

The idea that it was a good idea for us to persist for half a century to stabilize and support the democratization of South Korea, but that we should just run away and hide from Iraq where we have vastly more at stake than we ever did in Korea, strikes me as astonishingly naive and superficial.

A population which fights against us -- so that they won't be ruled by a corrupt dictatorship that's an extension of another corrupt, wannabe-dictatorship?

What are they -- un-American?

(P.S.: We haven't been all that quiet or secret about it in Iraq.)

A population which fights against us -- so that they won't be ruled by a corrupt dictatorship that's an extension of another corrupt, wannabe-dictatorship?

What are they -- un-American?

(P.S.: We haven't been all that quiet or secret about it in Iraq.)

Robert Powell-- please be aware that during our presence in South Korea for the past 55 years, we have not been refereeing a sectarian civil war, nor sustaining hundreds of casualties per year. US military presence in foreign countries is not all exactly the same.

McCain is unserious about foreign policy. This kind of floundering accusation is stupid and, fortunately, unpopular.

John McCain says that "anyone who worries about how long we're in Iraq does not understand the military."

This statement exemplifies what will be a major problem for the Democratic nominee in the general election. McCains status as a "true American hero" and expert on military policy insulates him from having to even try to provide reasons to back up his claims. He simply makes claims and his aura of authority make them true. Obama and Clinton will tie themselves in knots trying to explain why McCain is wrong on Iraq and it won't convince anyone other than those who are already in ardent opposition to the military mission. Anectodally, several purported Democrats have recently expressed to me that they are no longer worried about the Presidential elections because theyed be happy with Obama, Clinton, or McCain and because they believe that McCain is the best person to deal with the Iraq war. Not good evidence, but I worry that this may be a common perspective.

Precisely HOW MANY Iraqis are "fighting so hard against US troops"? Not very many by any remotely credible account.

Enough to stand up against 150,000 United States Army and Marine Corps fighting forces for the last five years -- so either there are quite a few of them, or they're a damned sight better fighters than we are.

Quite a few are fighting against other Iraqis in an attempt to grab power for their immediate small groups, but it's far from clear how many of them actually want us out in more than theoretical terms.

From an ABC News poll of Iraqis:

"The survey's results are deeply distressing from an American perspective as well: The number of Iraqis who call it "acceptable" to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716

The idea that it was a good idea for us to persist for half a century to stabilize and support the democratization of South Korea,

A very silly and ignorant apples to oranges comparison. First, we didn't invade South Korea. Second, we were in South Korea to protect it from invasion by an external neighbor, North Korea, which isn't at all the case here. And third, the South Koreans weren't engaged in a massive multi-year armed resistance campaign against us -- or at least I don't hear a lot about IEDs going off in Seoul every day.....

This is why McCain won't be the formidable candidate some fear he is.

My fear has nothing to do with McCain being formidable. My fear is that our Democratic nominee won't be willing to explain what McCain has in mind as plainly as Matt does...

Obama and Clinton will tie themselves in knots trying to explain why McCain is wrong on Iraq and it won't convince anyone other than those who are already in ardent opposition to the military mission.

Since the vast majority of the American people are already in ardent oppostion to the military mission, that's not such a big problem. Remember, despite what the mainstream media tell you, the Iraq War is deeply unpopular among the average American.

Matt, you've pointed out the paradox of the McCain campaign - that he is attracting the people in the Republican party who have turned against the war, according to the polls. The more he presses the warmonger button, the more he puts pressure on the public's willful ignorance of who he is.

Every candidate depends, to a certain extent, on the ability of the voters to remain in a state of denial about what they really stand for. Bush became a master at sending out a soothing impression that was the inverse of his real political positions. Hillary Clinton is suspect, I think, among those who really pay attention to politics among liberals precisely because she gives out that same vibe. And of course Obama is supposed to be a compound of impressions - hope and uplift - with no substance. In McCain's case, the impression is that he is a moderate. As he hammers away at supporting an immoderate war, a disaster from the beginning which will lead to further and bigger disasters that advantage a very small niche of American corporocrats and disadvantage the rest of us, it will be harder for his supporters to remain in a state of denial.

The warmongers made a mistake by not persuading Jeb Bush to run. Last night's speeches by Clinton, Obama and McCain show how totally outclassed McCain is as a national candidate. While Clinton and Obama are visibly national candidates - just as George Bush was in 2000 - McCain is amateur hour. The big lie - the surge is working - is not going to work over the big truth - we are spending another 200 billion dollars on a strategic vanity in the Middle East. 200 billion dollars, which is nothing to the military welfare mindset, is nicely bigger than the money spent to stimulate the economy. Just as recession and inflation doomed another round in Vietnam in 1974, it will put the stake through Iraq, a exercise in delusion and genocide for which we will have to pay for years in other ways.

"Fighting so hard against our troops"?

While the losses aren't a positive thing, the casualty rate in Iraq is stunningly low - low enough to compare favorably against the peacetime casualty rate of the military.

Things in Iraq aren't glorious, but they aren't in the crapper, either. The reality is somewhere between the surge cheerleading and the constant gloom from the left.

please be aware that during our presence in South Korea for the past 55 years, we have not been refereeing a sectarian civil war, nor sustaining hundreds of casualties per year

Which is exactly the stipulation McCain made in his 100 years comments.

It's clear that McCain knows a lot more than Matthew about diplomacy, Iraq, foreign policy, strategy, the concept of limited resources, and just about everything else. The idea that people are fighting against us in Iraq because they fear we'd be supporting a dictatorship is asinine. Indeed, it is precisely backwards. It is the people fighting us that want the dictatorship. Matthew is so muddleheaded about Iraq, that he can't even understand that we support democracy, which our opponents support dictatorship.

It is really hard to understand where Matthew gets his ideas about Iraq; they are just so consistently wrong. At least this post isn't out-and-out misleading BS like Monday's post about the Abu Tariq letter, where it was clear Matthew hadn't done even 5 seconds of research. But still, a pretty strange post.

"Robert Powell-- please be aware that during our presence in South Korea for the past 55 years, we have not been refereeing a sectarian civil war, nor sustaining hundreds of casualties per year."

And what were we doing for the three years before that? Sustaining tens of thousands of casualties in a civil war.

We weren't in Korea to democratize it. They democratized in spite of us. We supported autocrats like Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee.

Right, Fred, but a civil war with clear ideological and geographical bad guys, in support of a pre-existing regime. With the support of the UN, no less.

Rather than occupying an entire country that, as Stephan points out, really doesn't want us to be there.

Al,
So you are suggesting that McCain's plan is to pull out as soon as he realizes that while we are staying in Iraq we are babysitting a civil war?

It would seem that on your view, what McCain has done is to give a proposal for what we should do in the least likely scenario facing us, and nothing as to what we should do in the actual scenario facing us. Isn't that a bit inconsistent with his claiming that people who don't agree with him (apparently about what we should do in a situation that is not likely to come up) don't know what they are talking about?

This idea of thinking of Iraq as analogous to Korea does seem to show the desperation of war supporters. We have left troops in Korea as a trip wire along the DMZ. What exactly is supposed to be the equivalent in Iraq?

Remember, despite what the mainstream media tell you, the Iraq War is deeply unpopular among the average American.

The decision to go to war is viewed as wrong, and most Americans are in favor of a withdrawal, but those aren't the important questions. Most Americans also believe that there should be continued military action against Al Qaeda (and don't understand the Al Qaeda in Iraq distinction), most Americans believe that we need to prevent Iran from interfering in Iraq, and most Americans believe that any withdrawal should be done "responsibly," whatever that means. Most Americans continue to believe that the biggest problem with the war is that it was waged "incompetently," which is why Clinton continues to parrot that line. The Democratic nominee will have to fight hard against McCain being perceived as the person best equipt to deal with Iraq.

The thing about McCain's deranged call for a new Hundred Years War in the Middle East is that it should give Obama plenty of elbow room to develop an anti-war position that appeals to the anti-war majority without totally freaking out the media morons and the Democratic Party's foreign policy elite, who think the Iraq war is our cross and we have to bear it.

A "responsible" withdrawal strategy, in other words.

The real question is whether morons and elites will go along, or whether, when it comes down to it, McCain's madness is their madness, too.

Fred, there was no civil war in Iraq before we showed up. Responding to problem, causing problem. See the difference?

Probably not, but most people do.

With the support of the UN, no less.

We have the support of the UN with respecgt to our Iraq occupation. In fact the occupation is pursuant to a UN mandate.

Rather than occupying an entire country that, as Stephan points out, really doesn't want us to be there.

What percentage of Koreans - North and South - wanted us there?

The South Korea analogy may be instructive for other reasons. Why is it that we have to keep 50k of our men and women in South Korea to protect it from North Korea when South Korea is immensely more wealthy, has twice the population and has much greater technological capabilities than the North? Perhaps because they have simply relied upon us to do so and have not had to make any effort to bring their military to a level that can defend itself? Which is exactly what will happen in Iraq and we will be in there for 100+ years. Moreover, our troops in South Korea serve mainly as trip wires for a North Korean invasion. I think Korea is the last analogy anyone would want to make to the situation in Iraq.

Wait till Sadr has had enough and chucks the ceasefire......

So you are suggesting that McCain's plan is to pull out as soon as he realizes that while we are staying in Iraq we are babysitting a civil war?

No, McCain's plan clearly is to win the war, and then we can determine together with the democratic Iraqi government whether it makes sense to completely withdraw all troops.

how long has the capital of s. korea been without clean water and electricity?

And what were we doing for the three years before that? Sustaining tens of thousands of casualties in a civil war.

Not quite. We were defending South Korea from an invasion by its neighbor North Korea. In the case of Iraq, we were the invader, and it was our invasion which caused the civil war, which never would have broken out if not for us.

No, McCain's plan clearly is to win the war, and then we can determine together with the democratic Iraqi government whether it makes sense to completely withdraw all troops.

That's interesting, Al, because my plan is to create world peace and determine together with Santa Claus whether it makes sense to give all the Iraqi children a free pony.

Frankly, the mere fact that Republicans are still talking about "winning the war in Iraq" indicates that their entire game plan is to cling to political power by whipping up patriotic fervor with a steaming pile of self-serving bullshit. There is no war in Iraq that the United States military can win, and there is no sovereign democratic government in Iraq that can tell us to leave. Until the American electorate comes to terms with these very basic truths, which have been recognized by nearly everyone who knows anything about the planet we live on, we're going to be spinning our tires aimlessly in Iraq at great cost in blood and treasure.

McCain even goes so far as to directly compare his vision of Iraq to the current situation in Kuwait, where in exchange for basing rights and oil we help prop up an unaccountable and corrupt dictatorship.

Iraqi resistance groups are fighting us because many of them want to be the ones in charge of the new unaccountable and corrupt dictatorship. The most noble gloss you can put on it is that some of them don't particularly care what the ultimate form of the government is so long it doesn't simply slaughter them. But to suggest that all of these groups represent some heroic post-colonial desire for self-determination (especially democratic self-determination as implied by your post) seems off-base.

I think McCain is crazy if he thinks the US public will stand for a century-long commitment to Iraqi nation building (especially if he continues Bush's "let the troops just stand around with no long term strategy" policy). But I think this post glosses over a lot of the moral ambiguity in the situation.

Apparently our military leaders do not agree with McCain. This shows just a small selection from the many studies and reports about the increasing difficulty the US Army has attracting and retaining good people.

The problem existed before the war. The war has made it much worse.

"An Army near the Breaking Point — an archive of links"
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/army-breaking/

LaFollette Progressive is correct, but I think here's the problem with the Obama campaign plan (pretty much the same for Hillary's).

My mental model is that we're looking at three distinct "filters", the Democratic electorate (which is 85% for rapidly leaving Iraq), the general electorate which is 60% for that, and the DC/NYC media/political/donor elite, which is 85% *against* leaving Iraq.

If Obama won't make the issue central to his primary campaign, it's unlikely he'll do so in the much less supportive general election campaign. And if Obama doesn't do so in his general election campaign, it's unlikely he'd actually carry out such a policy given the overwhelming DC elite consensus against it. I'd be very happy is someone can persuasively debunk my analysis.

Given this analysis, we'll still be in Iraq until some financial or military force majeure throws us out.

"They democratized in spite of us. We supported autocrats like Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee."

Talk about missing the point: had we not supported rightist autocrats in South Korea, instead of the leftist autocrat alternatives, South Korea wouldn't be a prosperous democracy today. You may have noticed a pattern here. We have a pretty good track record of supporting rightist autocracies that eventually transitioned to democracy -- with the consent and assistance of the rightist parties. In addition to South Korea, other examples include Taiwan, Chile, and El Salvador.

Even where we support autocracies that resist democracy, as in parts of the Arab world, conditions are usually better than in those countries that aren't under our aegis. For example, the autocracies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc., have made significant strides in economic and other liberalization over the last several years. They are reinvesting petroleum wealth into other industries to broaden middle class opportunities, they are sponsoring local campuses of great American universities, etc.

Those calling for "victory" in Iraq never define what that means. Al praises McCain's plan, which is, as he says, "to win the war." Setting aside the fact that winning the war is not a plan but a goal, what exactly does winning in Iraq mean?

The war supporters never say. They probably have no idea. How will they know when we've "won"? Maybe we already have won and we just don't know it and now it's time for us to leave.

Apparently our military leaders do not agree with McCain.

Apparently, military voters don't agree with John McCain, either:

Using CNN’s exit poll data, Brandon Friedman is able to show that, among Republicans, McCain carried the veteran vote in Virginia by only 51 - 49.

That’s the good news for McCain.

The bad news is that McCain lost the Republican veteran vote in Louisiana by 47 - 53, in California by 46 - 54, in Florida by 42 - 58, in Oklahoma by the same margin, in Missouri by 39 - 61, and in Georgia by 37 - 63.


.

i think "We have a pretty good track record of supporting rightist autocracies that eventually transitioned to democracy, which is funny because those autocracies were preceded by democracies that had democratically elected leaders we did not like " is more apt in chile's case. and iran. and guatemala.

"Setting aside the fact that winning the war is not a plan but a goal, what exactly does winning in Iraq mean?"

It means that the democratically-elected government of Iraq remains democratic while becoming strong enough (and the insurgency becomes weak enough) to defend the country against internal threats without our help.

LaFollette Progressive fucking nails it at 10:51, bravo.
Re RKU at 11:07, I wonder whether Obama has been avoiding making Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign as a deliberate strategy -- maybe he wanted to avoid being narrowly categorized as the "anti-war candidate," and to avoid the "angry" tag that inevitably goes along with that. Trying to avoid Howard Dean's fate, and to be seen in broader, more positive terms than that one very hot-button issue.
I understand the resulting pessimism as to what that means for his Iraq policy should he come to occupy the White House, but it doesn't seem to me to be a totally foregone conclusion that he'd then decline to buck the "overwhelming DC elite consensus." At least, I sure hope not.

we should just run away and hide from Iraq where we have vastly more at stake than we ever did in Korea

That is not clear at all. Just how do we have vastly more at stake in Iraq than South Korea? The Middle East is a cultural and economic backwater, other than oil there's nothing there we want, and Iraq would have to sell its oil under almost any regime. Korea on the other hand is in a very strategic position between China and Japan - two countries that were important to the US and the world economy even 60 years ago. Even then it was clear to a lot of people that Asia was the future, and that the US should play a role in shaping that future. Even before WWII Korea was an industrial and agricultural lynchpin in the Imperial Japanese economy and had a population that was better educated and more productive than the world average. Even in Vietnam, the US had more at stake than we do in Iraq. We really have very little at stake in Iraq other than stroking some peoples' egos and, now, protecting the peaceful part of the Iraqi population from the mess we helped create in the first place.

Its THE BASES-permanent occupation, in other words. Thats been the plan all along, and W, as well as most of the Dems know it.

Talk about missing the point: had we not supported rightist autocrats in South Korea, instead of the leftist autocrat alternatives, South Korea wouldn't be a prosperous democracy today.

Let's stipulate for a moment that this is true. Where is the rightist autocrat we're supporting in Iraq who can bring stability and prosperity? I only see a weak, quasi-democratic rump state that's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States Armed Forces and has little or no popular support. There was, in fact, a fairly similar situation during the Cold War in a country whose name also started with the word "South." And it ain't Korea.

And as others have pointed out, you can't talk about our track record of supporting rightist autocracies without mentioning the Shah of Iran. He might be a tad more relevant to the Iraq situation than Rhee or Pinochet.

That's interesting, Al, because my plan is to create world peace and determine together with Santa Claus whether it makes sense to give all the Iraqi children a free pony.

But, of course, your scenario is fantasy and McCain's plan is realistic, practical, and beneficial to US national security.

Frankly, the mere fact that Republicans are still talking about "winning the war in Iraq" indicates that their entire game plan is to cling to political power by whipping up patriotic fervor with a steaming pile of self-serving bullshit. There is no war in Iraq that the United States military can win, and there is no sovereign democratic government in Iraq that can tell us to leave.

Nobody is talking about the US military winning the war all by itself. That's a strawman that the Democrats, including Matthew, seem to put out there on a regular basis. But it has no basis in Reality.

It will take a concerted effort of the US military and the sovereign Iraqi government's reconciliation efforts. And, of course, the Iraqi government continues to slowly make progress on the reconciliation front.

Talk about missing the point: had we not supported rightist autocrats in South Korea, instead of the leftist autocrat alternatives, South Korea wouldn't be a prosperous democracy today.

False dilemma, Fred. If we had supported democracy instead of (rightist, leftist, centrist, whatever) autocracies South Korean would have gained basic freedoms sooner.

For example, the autocracies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc., have made significant strides in economic and other liberalization over the last several years.

That's easy enough for you to be patient, Fred. You're not someone living in one of the repressive dictatorships who wishes to have basic freedoms now, not decades or centuries from now, or perhaps never.

I wonder whether Obama has been avoiding making Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign as a deliberate strategy...I understand the resulting pessimism as to what that means for his Iraq policy should he come to occupy the White House, but it doesn't seem to me to be a totally foregone conclusion that he'd then decline to buck the "overwhelming DC elite consensus."

These are the sentiments of a (seemingly) pro-Obama optimist.

Need I say more...

Need I say more...

No, your point is well-taken. But as you yourself acknowledge, the observation applies to HRC as well.

The Korea analogy is almost too stupid to type about, but I'll type about it anyway.

Korea was a battle between two giant hegemons for supremacy, we didn't know how far and wide the Sino/Soviet influence would spread, hence Korea.

By Vietnam, the Sino/Soviet alliance had largely been severed (that's why Vietnam was such a waste and why Nixon went to China).

With Iraq, we, an enervating hegemon, are trying to continue to enforce our global prerogatives, well, (setting aside the questionable morality) it's a desperate and foolish waste of time. What we're able to enforce has changed, and there are better ways to go about it.

As for Powell, every time an Iraqi person dies, Powell gets a dollar in his pocket. Every time someone says 'gee, I don't think killing Arabs so Powell can earn dollars is a terrific idea,' Powell responds that that person is 'ignorant' or an 'idiot.'

Powell's not an idiot, he's just a greedy ghoul (who probably has a poor sense of history, things change Powell, 2008 != 1952). Personally, I'd rather just put Powell on welfare so we don't have to waste our national resources on a destructive war.

We can't enforce these prerogatives (let alone the morality of it), we have to deal with our interests and our allies' interests in a different manner.

Remember, McCain is winning among anti-war GOP voters in the primaries.

I don't like the 'too stupid to vote' argument, but if you're casting your vote for McCain while wanting a swift end to the Iraq debacle, then I hope you park on the same side of the street as the polling place, because crossing the road may cause you problems.

But, of course, your scenario is fantasy and McCain's plan is realistic, practical, and beneficial to US national security.

And Al would be saying exactly the same thing, even if he wasn't feasting on the products of the Afghan poppy harvest.

"Nobody is talking about the US military winning the war all by itself. That's a strawman that the Democrats, including Matthew, seem to put out there on a regular basis. But it has no basis in Reality."

This sails a mile wide of Reality. No one is saying the US military needs to "win the war" all by itself. The issue is that there is no war for the US military to win. There is factional violence between various parties who are mostly, to varying degrees, our allies. There is resistance to the occupation that may wax and wane in violence and intensity but is never going to go away completely. And there are a relatively small number of foreign Sunni Jihadists who have no popular support except from Iraqis who are pissed off about our seemingly endless occupation of Iraq.

No Democratic candidate is advocating a precipitous withdrawal. The only issue here is whether we intend to start the withdrawal process while continuing to work toward political reconciliation, or whether we intend to make it clear that we plan to stay for as long as we feel like it because we're insane and we think we can defeat global Islamist terrorism from a bunch of permanent bases in Iraq and therefore your faction probably shouldn't bother making any concessions because sugar daddy will continue to prop up your Potemkin democracy.

Remember, McCain is winning among anti-war GOP voters in the primaries.

Well, I'd say that a huge part of the problem is the totally bizarro world of the NYC/DC media elite and punditariat.

Remember, anyone who just casually reads the papers here and there or watches a little cable news was endlessly told that the two most "moderate" candidates in the Republican primaries were Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Since Bush's policies are always described as "very conservative", that would vaguely imply that Giuliani and McCain would be totally different and more "moderate". Q.E.D.

Partly it's the inherent problem of attempting to map a highly-multidimensional ideological space into a one-dimensional metric. It's certainly true that Giuliani and McCain are more "moderate" than Bush in lots of things, but just not all of them...

McCain seems to be taking the "wait and see" approach to Iraq: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/politics/15mccain.html?hp

The NY Times article describes how McCain believes the Bush strategy is the way to go: increase troop levels (the surge) so "Iraqi political leaders have an opportunity to pursue a program of political reconciliation."

My question is, what has the Bush administration done to enable, coerce, encourage, or push the Iraqi government to reconcile? What would McCain do, if elected President, to make this happen? He talks all about military issues, but if the solution is "political reconciliation" what is the strategy for that? He vaguely refers to it in the article, but I'm not clear what the plan is around that. Isn't that what the discussion should also be about?

SN,

Of the big three political reconciliation deals Iraqis needed to make, the second has just been passed. Iraqis recently dropped the restrictions on government employment for low-level Baathists and just now they have also passed a bill setting provincial elections (the third big deal is a national oil law). So the Bush diplomatic push in Iraq, led by Ambassador Crocker, is clearly generating results. Of course, none of this would have been possible, had the military surge not reduced the level violence in Iraq.

It's not 2006 anymore. There is now undeniable military and political progress in Iraq.

Stefan, Elvis, vanya, etc.:

--the distinction between North and South Korea was brand new and far, far shakier than that of an Iraqi state in 1950. We certainly did invade and participate in a civil war that killed perhaps 2 million people, about 40,000 of them GI's. A close friend and colleague lost a son there in 1996 when the helicopter he was in went down killing him and the other 12 Marines on board. This was not a particularly rare event. As James Robertson pointed out, our current casualties in Iraq aren't dramatically more than those such peacetime events caused. According to DoD, 7,500 service personnel were killed on duty during the Clinton years, many of them in Korea.

--in the '50's Korea was an appalling disaster area with a starving population in a twilight zone between China and Russia, with little immediate relevance to Japan. Iraq, in contrast, is sitting on the fulcrum of the world economy. As Allan Greenspan among others has pointed out, its aggressive policy on crucial trade routes created severe economic disruption on more than one occasion; and control of that kind of oil wealth by such a regime posed all sorts of problems for its neighbors and the entire industrialized world.

--citing an ABC News poll about Iraqi attitudes is about as weak as argumentation can get. Getting useful data from polls conducted by White guys who don't speak the language in a war zone, surrounded by heavily armed US troops and translators of dubious politics, is at best dodgy. Iraq has a freely-elected government that's more legitimate and representative than any in the history of the region, excepting Israel and Turkey. When they say we should leave, or before, we'll leave. People who imagine that we're being opposed by a big, well-organized insurgency with popular support, a real program, and any hope of gaining power, are not well-informed.

--Whatever the merits of Fred's point on supporting authoritarian governments (and I think the counter-arguments are basically sound), that's a different argument. Iraq has a democratic government, elected freely in a UN-supervised election, which is currently holding Iraq's seat in the General Assembly.

"Of course, none of this would have been possible, had the military surge not reduced the level violence in Iraq."

ignoring the the fact that we didn't meet any of our own benchmarks was also a very important step.

"Its THE BASES-permanent occupation, in other words. Thats been the plan all along, and W, as well as most of the Dems know it."

We already have bases in Qatar and Kuwait. We don't need permanent bases in Iraq.

"Where is the rightist autocrat we're supporting in Iraq who can bring stability and prosperity?"

It wouldn't have been politically correct for us to impose a rightest autocrat on Iraq. Instead, we let the Iraqis chose their own leaders via a UN-authorized and monitored election.

"I only see a weak, quasi-democratic rump state that's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States Armed Forces and has little or no popular support."

I see a government that was elected by its people in an internationally-monitored, free, multi-party election with 80% turnout. I think it deserves our support.

"That's easy enough for you to be patient, Fred. You're not someone living in one of the repressive dictatorships who wishes to have basic freedoms now, not decades or centuries from now, or perhaps never."

Better to have economic progress in an autocracy than to stay poor in an autocracy. What would you prefer as an alternative? That we invade these countries and depose their governments? Instead we've used diplomacy to encourage slow progress (e.g., Kuwait allowing women to vote in its legislative elections). I thought that was the left's preferred approach.

Of the big three political reconciliation deals Iraqis needed to make, the second has just been passed. Iraqis recently dropped the restrictions on government employment for low-level Baathists and just now they have also passed a bill setting provincial elections (the third big deal is a national oil law).

The Baathist law was a fraud, Fred (Fred, fraud?). It was opposed by the ex-Ba'athists it was ostensibly supposed to help. It's hilarious that you're still pointing to a sign that reconciliation is further away then ever as a good sign.

Meanwhile, even Rich Lowry, who parrots the ridiculous notion that the civil war is over in Iraq, can't deny that the government is universally loathed in Iraq. There has been no reconciliation and Iraq has no government.

You're right, it's not 2006. The situation now is the same as in 2005. Violence levels now are the same as in '05; Petraeus's counter-insurgency strategy is the same counter-insurgency strategy we were using in 2005 (remember NR's headline "We're Winning: How the U.S. Mastered the Art of Counterinsurgency"). Then as now, Iraq is in a genocidal civil war but Bush cultists deny it.

The difference between 2006 and 2005 or 2008 is that in 2006 things got so bad that even Bush cultists couldn't deny that Iraq was in a civil war. Now things are at 2005 levels: Iraq is a disaster, the surge failed miserably, but conservatives at least get to deny it.

"Its THE BASES-permanent occupation, in other words. Thats been the plan all along, and W, as well as most of the Dems know it."

We already have bases in Qatar and Kuwait. We don't need permanent bases in Iraq.

"Where is the rightist autocrat we're supporting in Iraq who can bring stability and prosperity?"

It wouldn't have been politically correct for us to impose a rightest autocrat on Iraq. Instead, we let the Iraqis chose their own leaders via a UN-authorized and monitored election.

"I only see a weak, quasi-democratic rump state that's a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States Armed Forces and has little or no popular support."

I see a government that was elected by its people in an internationally-monitored, free, multi-party election with 80% turnout. I think it deserves our support.

"That's easy enough for you to be patient, Fred. You're not someone living in one of the repressive dictatorships who wishes to have basic freedoms now, not decades or centuries from now, or perhaps never."

Better to have economic progress in an autocracy than to stay poor in an autocracy. What would you prefer as an alternative? That we invade these countries and depose their governments? Instead we've used diplomacy to encourage slow progress (e.g., Kuwait allowing women to vote in its legislative elections). I thought that was the left's preferred approach.

Thanks for the substantive response, Robert Powell.

I don't think it is a great argument that war is the same thing as peace as far as casualties go. First off, the experience of our soldiers in Iraq today is darn different than was the experience of most in Korea in the 1990s. Also, thankfully, due to advancements in medicine, the number of people who die from their injuries in the Iraq occupation is less than it has been in past conflicts.

Your argument that Iraq is more strategically important than Korea 1955 is convincing. However, that doesn't affect the calculation of the cost of our staying in Iraq, or the likelihood of success of our indefinitely maintaining the occupation. It is relevant to calculating the downside of withdrawing.

I don't know about the ABC poll methodology, but I suspect it's at least a little more sound than you're letting on. Do you have any differing polls, or an investigation of the methodology of that poll? Also, the government is already hinting that it wants us to leave.

Iraq has a rickety government with tenuous control over anything beyond the green zone, and has a hard time getting the US to do things that it wants us to do (ie, curb abusive contractors).

McCain's secret plan to make the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, in his own words, cut that shit out would be funny if it wasn't sad. Considering that the much-trumpeted reconciliation law that was passed a few weeks ago that turned out to be nothing more than a way to purge more ex-Baathist Sunnis from the government now gets spinned by the right as progress, the right now has no choice but to become even more self-delusional. Take the idea of comparing an ideological civil war in one of the most homogeneous nations in the world - Korea - to an ethnic civil war in a young, diverse country with oil. That is simply stupid. Ideological civil wars are won as much on the battlefield as in newspapers and also by pissing off the non-combatant civilian majority the least. Ethnic civil wars often either don't end and simply go in cycles, end with a country being split up (often by a third party) or see one armed ethnic faction driven from the country (as the genocidal Hutu military was driven from Rwanda).

It's not 2006 anymore. There is now undeniable military and political progress in Iraq.

Huh. Back in 2006 Republicans like Fred were claiming that there was undeniable military and political progress in Iraq then. So were they lying then or are they lying now....or, come to think of it, might they be lying all the time.....

The basic problem is that there seems to be a complete dearth of strategic thinking on the part of the government and that trickles down and defines the conversations about Iraq. On a very basic level, we desperately need to reappraise every element of our objectives in the world, our force postures and our defense spending and resource allocation. It's something that has been missing ever since Eisenhower's vision of cheap nuclear deterrence was defeated by the military/industrial complex. So instead we divvy up enormous defense budgets more or less evenly across the services (why?), we continue to maintain military presence all over the world on the basis of where the end lines were in 1945 (why?), we continue to invest massive research dollars in Cold War weapons systems and/or things like missile defense (why?) and so on, right down the line. In many cases, it's simply corruption, or bureaucratic in-fighting, which ends up hurting the national interest. (It's ironic that Donald Rumsfeld has ended up as one of the primary villains of Iraq, because his basic assumptions about the desirability of transforming the military along RMA lines was and continues to be essentially correct.) But we never have these kinds of discussions, certainly not in a public forum.

Now as far as our presence in Iraq, it's the natural outgrowth of the Carter Doctrine, and it makes more strategic sense than most of our force allocation. We're there to guard the oil, and oil is the most precious natural resource in the world at the moment. But it is also a backward-thinking policy. There is a finite supply of oil, it's running down fairly quickly, and there is tremendous need to move our economy off oil and to the next energy generating source. The vast sums of money that are being thrown into Iraq could just as easily be used in research, in development, and in laying down the infrastructure to accommodate the move away from oil. That's a legitimate debate. That's an important debate. That will, never, ever, ever come up, in no small part because no one wants to admit that our soldiers are dying for oil in the first place.

You can run around in circles arguing whether or not the Iraq government is making progress or not, whether or not the surge is working or not, right on down the line, but it's missing the forest for the trees. The threat, such as it is, posed by Islamic extremism, exists solely because we need to hang around in the Middle East and suck their oil out of the ground. Once we are off oil, we can turn off the lights and forget all about the Middle East, and in turn they'll forget all about us. No one in Southeast Asia is bothering to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

So much misinformation, so little time....

--the distinction between North and South Korea was brand new and far, far shakier than that of an Iraqi state in 1950. We certainly did invade and participate in a civil war that killed perhaps 2 million people, about 40,000 of them GI's.

We never invaded South Korea. We invaded North Korea while pushing back the North's invasion of the South. If you disagree, please provide a contemporaneous cite from 1950 that says we invaded South Korea.

As James Robertson pointed out, our current casualties in Iraq aren't dramatically more than those such peacetime events caused. According to DoD, 7,500 service personnel were killed on duty during the Clinton years, many of them in Korea.

Those personnel were killed due to accident and misadventure, not by enemy action. But accidents are still going on at as great or greater pace than before, so now we have deaths due to accident on top of deaths due to combat. After all, it's not as if thanks to the Iraq War Marines are no longer tripping on stairs and breaking their necks, soldiers are no longer driving Humvees too fast and overturning, helicopters are no longer crashing due to mechanical failure. You don't seem to understand statistics too well, do you?

- -citing an ABC News poll about Iraqi attitudes is about as weak as argumentation can get. Getting useful data from polls conducted by White guys who don't speak the language in a war zone, surrounded by heavily armed US troops and translators of dubious politics, is at best dodgy.

Who says the poll was conducted by white guys? It was conducted by ABC, but like most news organizations in Iraq they use local Arabic speaking Iraqis to conduct these polls. Moreover, the fact that Iraqis would say they want the US out even while surrounded by heavily armed US troops is more rather than less indicative that that's what they want. If they were going to lie, they'd lie in the other direction. If someone's holding a gun to my head and says "do you want me to stay or go?" and I stay "fuck off, I want you gone" does it seem like I'm lying?

Iraq has a freely-elected government that's more legitimate and representative than any in the history of the region, excepting Israel and Turkey.

Incorrect. Iran also has a fairly representative goverment, as does Lebanon.

People who imagine that we're being opposed by a big, well-organized insurgency with popular support, a real program, and any hope of gaining power, are not well-informed.

So if the insurgency is small, poorly organized and without popular support, why have 150,000 soldiers and Marines of the largest and wealthiest military in the world been unable to beat them in over five years? Are we really that incompetent?


"Huh. Back in 2006 Republicans like Fred were claiming that there was undeniable military and political progress in Iraq then."

Actually, during 2006, most of us acknowledged that things had taken a turn for the worse after the Golden Mosque bombing and were frustrated that Bush waited so long to acknowledge the deteriorating situation and change course.

"Incorrect. Iran also has a fairly representative goverment, as does Lebanon."

Iraq's government is far more legitimate and representative than the governments in Iran and Lebanon. Iran is a theocracy, where the head cleric controls the armed forces and the media, and the clerical establishment handpicks the candidates in parliamentary elections. The chief complaint of Lebanon's Shias is that its government is not representative, since power is ostensibly shared according to a formula designed by France based on outdated demographics. In practice, Lebanon's government has been subject to substantial interference (including assassinations of elected officials) by Syria.

"So if the insurgency is small, poorly organized and without popular support, why have 150,000 soldiers and Marines of the largest and wealthiest military in the world been unable to beat them in over five years? Are we really that incompetent?"

Successful counterinsurgencies have historically required a ratio of ten counter-insurgent troops to one insurgent and over a decade to defeat. Compared to the historical track record, our armed forces achievements in Iraq, particularly in the last year, when they started counterinsurgency efforts in earnest, have been remarkable.

Actually, during 2006, most of us acknowledged that things had taken a turn for the worse after the Golden Mosque bombing and were frustrated that Bush waited so long to acknowledge the deteriorating situation and change course.

That's the thing, Fred. You clung to the idea that the Golden Mosque bombing changed something fundamental in Iraq, when all it did was prove that the moonbats were right all through 2005 that Iraq was a disaster. The violence in 2006 was worse than 2005, but 2005 was horrific (as is 2008).

Instead of questioning the war or the rationale, you clung to "the surge" (which is the exact same counter-insurgency strategy we were using in 2005, and which conservatives were celebrating) as a way of getting back the good old days of 2005. Now Iraq is in a genocidal civil war, America cannot "win" there, and conservatives are happy because they have the ability to deny that the genocide is occurring. But at least try to think back to 2005 and remember that all the "good news" now is the same illusory "good news" from then (actually, things were probably a bit better in 2005 than under General Petraeus's failed leadership).

"Golden Mosque" = the Golden Excuse for apologist trolls everywhere

Elvis: You're welcome. Obviously war is more dangerous than peace-the overall deaths under Bush are 9600 compared to the 7500 during the Clinton years. The point is, compared with any serious conflict we've ever been in, these are low numbers; and, even in peacetime, soldiering in places like Korea is a dangerous business. Nearly all of the troops I've known in over twenty-five years of government service in uniform and out accept the risk as part of the job, and hope to be allowed to succeed when given the job of fighting for our vital national interests.

You are clearly correct that there is a cost associated with staying in Iraq, but there's also a cost associated with leaving carelessly. At this point our casualties are way down, largely as a result of the change in strategy. In my view, what the troops are tasked with doing is more important than exactly how many there are, and we finally seem to be doing some of the right things. This needs to continue as Iraq struggles to put itself back together after decades of destruction by its totalitarian former rulers. We, and the rest of the civilized world, have a big stake in the outcome, not least in terms of our responsibilities to the many thousands of Iraqis who have stuck their necks out to help us free their country.

There are LOTS of polls, nearly all of them extremely ambiguous. The ABC poll was one of the least credible, but I don't trust any of them very much. The only polls that really count are elections, and the Iraqi government that resulted from the last ones, and its successors, are the best and most reliable source of information about what the Iraqis they represent want and need. At this point they want our help. All of us are looking forward to the time when they don't need so much of it. But this is not an occupation. We are supporting the legitimate elected government at its request, under a unanimous Security Council Resolution.

Stefan: there's a lot you don't know about Iraq and Korea. After this, I suggest you do a little reading rather than depending on me for the basics. In 1950 our presence in South Korea (a distinction from "North" Korea that was of short and far from generally agreed duration) consisted of a small toehold around Pusan. We launched an amphibious invasion at Inchon, which is basically the port for Seoul, eventually driving close to the Yalu River before being pushed back with appalling losses by the Chinese. This was every bit as much an invasion as Iraq, with some Koreans for and others against. In the course of the war our bombing, which has been described as "near genocidal", killed about 11% of the total North Korean population. We also killed lots of South Koreans in collateral damage and a few massacres--it wasn't always clear who was on which side. Plenty of them wanted us gone then, and now.

The "insurgency" in Iraq isn't, strictly speaking, fighting our troops in any meaningful way. If they did they'd be defeated in about 45 minutes. They are setting off bombs in marketplaces and on highways, and hiding among a civilian population that no longer supports them but are in effect hostages in most areas. We have been in many ways incompetent, but it would be wrong to give too much credit to a collection of loosely organized gangs fighting a losing battle for a piece of the action.

It is profoundly disingenuous (or stunningly stupid, take your pick) to claim that an amphibious operation in a war that was already underway (we didn't pop in at Pusan- we got driven all the way down the Korean peninsula) is in any way equivalent to invading a country that is currently at peace with you. Are you seriously going to make that argument? No, I mean-seriously? Do you assume that there isn't anyone on the left who knows the slightest thing about military history? That's the only conclusion I can draw.

Obviously war is more dangerous than peace-the overall deaths under Bush are 9600 compared to the 7500 during the Clinton years.

Er, no. Another complete apples to oranges comparison, as you are comparing all deaths in uniform under Clinton (accident, sickness, homicide, suicide, etc.) to only combat deaths under Bush. To make a valid comparison, you have to compare the combat deaths under Clinton (about 43 in Somalia and 2 in Bosnia/Kosovo, or 45 total) to combat deaths under Bush (about 4,000 total).

And where are you getting these numbers from? Please provide a cite to a reputable (i.e. non-wingnut) source.

The "insurgency" in Iraq isn't, strictly speaking, fighting our troops in any meaningful way.

Then who killed those 4,000 American soldiers and Marines? Who maimed and injured the tens of thousands of other American servicemen and women?

If they did they'd be defeated in about 45 minutes.

If we can defeat them in 45 minutes rather than five years, then why don't we?

They are setting off bombs in marketplaces and on highways, and hiding among a civilian population that no longer supports them but are in effect hostages in most areas. We have been in many ways incompetent, but it would be wrong to give too much credit to a collection of loosely organized gangs fighting a losing battle for a piece of the action.

If they're still fighting after five years, then yeah, you have to give them credit. It seems your argument is basically "yeah, we could beat them but we don't wanna, so there." Compelling on a playground, certainly, but no so persuasive in real life.

Stefan: there's a lot you don't know about Iraq and Korea. After this, I suggest you do a little reading rather than depending on me for the basics. In 1950 our presence in South Korea (a distinction from "North" Korea that was of short and far from generally agreed duration) consisted of a small toehold around Pusan. We launched an amphibious invasion at Inchon, which is basically the port for Seoul, eventually driving close to the Yalu River before being pushed back with appalling losses by the Chinese. This was every bit as much an invasion as Iraq, with some Koreans for and others against.

As Sean already noted above, this is a stunningly dishonest misreading of the facts. It's like citing the Normandy landings to claim that "the United States invaded France" -- technically true in only the most literal meaning of the words, because in fact the United States was attacking the German forces who had invaded and occupied France.

Here's the key difference: in the Korean War, we were allied with the sovereign government of South Korea in helping them resist an invasion by a hostile power, while in Iraq, we invaded and overthrew the sovereign government of a nation that was at peace with us. I can't believe I even have to waste time in pointing out these most basis facts.

The rightwing dictatorships we supported in Pakistan still haven't democratized Pakistan....whereas the left-leaning democracy in India against whom we supported these dictatorships seems to be making steady progress on prosperity and even on human rights.
What's more, in spite of our historic support of Pakistan, Indian's are probably more reliable allies than our friends across their border.
So maybe supporting right wing dictatorships is not always a good thing.
Not to mention the whole Iran thing...

Indians are more probably more reliable allies

Successful counterinsurgencies have historically required a ratio of ten counter-insurgent troops to one insurgent and over a decade to defeat.

If our 150,000 soldiers and Marines haven't been able to defeat the rebels, that means either (a) there are more than 15,000 of them, hence they're not a small force, or (b) we're really bad at this.

Compared to the historical track record, our armed forces [sic] achievements in Iraq, particularly in the last year, when they started counterinsurgency efforts in earnest, have been remarkable.

If the insurgency began in 2003, and our counterinsurgency efforts didn't begin in earnest until 2007, i.e. four years later, then I'd hardly call that "remarkable."

"please be aware that during our presence in South Korea for the past 55 years, we have not been refereeing a sectarian civil war, nor sustaining hundreds of casualties per year

Which is exactly the stipulation McCain made in his 100 years comments."

Which is exactly why McCain is a fucking moron.

Because there is no possible extrapolation of the future in which Iraqi insurgents will NOT be trying to kill US troops.

And, no, the "Awakening" movement is not a viable long-term alternative. Paying a bunch of guys who hate the central government $300/month not to shoot Americans, while they rearm and regroup for the next big push against the Shia - and the Americans if they get in the way - is not exactly a viable strategy.

And McCain absolutely does not get this.

And neither do the right wing nuts here.

Powell: "The "insurgency" in Iraq isn't