Clearly his true métier is the formal speech rather than this sort of committee work. Still, I think Obama's line of questioning did a good job of underscoring the ultimately hollow nature of the strategy being pursued currently in Iraq. We need to stay because of these various problems, so we need to stay, and what we're doing is working, and yet somehow there's no path from Point A to Point B -- no way to connect the dots between what's happening now, and a situation where the problems have actually been solved.
« Voinovich! | Main | Olympic Boycott »
Obama's Questions
08 Apr 2008 05:28 pm
Comments (59)
Obama actually asked a smart question. Unfortunately, Ambassador Crocker -- though fluent in Persian and Arabic -- isn't terribly articulate in English, and didn't give a good answer.
He seemed like a plausible president questioning experts on a situation in such a way to get to the heart of the matter. He didn't seem to be posturing, and he wasn't looking for speeches in reply, but rather answers and advice.
Not sure it was effective political theatre or the type of thing that stands out in clips, but if he becomes president, gives an indication that at least he can control a discussion to get the best answers he can.
McCain was a dud, cheerleader. Clinton was OK, but had no impressionable effect. Obama on the other hand was articulate, clear, concise and forthright. He kind of illuminated on the issue in such a way that it would make sense to any idiot -- especially when he spoke about 'measures of success'. The man is intelligent, very very intelligent. Everybody was waiting for this, even the Senators.
McCain was a dud, cheerleader. Clinton was OK, but had no impressionable effect. Obama on the other hand was articulate, clear, concise and forthright.
Yeah, but have you seen him bowl?
I give Obama credit for avoiding the temptation to grandstand and manufacture some evening news sound bite. He asked smart, well-informed questions that pointed out the fundamental problem with the whole Crocker approach: Crocker can't give us anything precise in the way of a definition of a finished job in Iraq; our resources are finite; and in the end we are just not going to get George Bush's pony in Iraq.
Ultimately, he got them to admit that leaving Iraq can't be determined by the achievement of all of Washington's fondest wishes. He can take this out on the campaign trail against McCain, and point out that McCain's maximalist fantasies for a mission accomplished in Iraq are deeply unrealistic, as even Crocker and Petraeus seemed to acknowledge.
Overall, the Foreign Relations committee did a FAR better job advancing the Democratic position IMO than the Senate Arms Services committee. And that is primarily because of Joe Biden: getting Crocker to say Afghanistan/Pakistan is the bigger threat w/Al Qaeda is a HUGE talking point going forward when coupled with Obama's finite resources trajectory.
Today was good in that it clearly illustrated the fact that there is no end game in sight from this administration and no credible way to stay without pulling the armed forces apart.
Anyone got a Youtube or anything of that nature of Obama's questions and the answers received?
Naelok: Go to TPM. You can click on excerpts, at least, on the front page.
Kelly, your orgasm is showing
"Obama on the other hand was articulate, clear, concise and forthright. He kind of illuminated on the issue..."
BTW, it is RACIST to refer to the Big O as articulate. Ask Joe Biden.
At least Obama, unlike McCain, seems to know the difference betweeen Sunnis, Shias, Iranians, and Al Qaeda. I wonder if McCain was able to follow this line of questioning or if he got confused? Obama's questioned focused on an end to the war and not the vague "100 years, no end in sight until victory whatever that looks like" track that McCain blathers on about.
BTW, it is RACIST to refer to the Big O as articulate. Ask Joe Biden.
I think you have to add "clean" in there like Joe did to make a total ass out of yourself.
Dan Kervick,
"I give Obama credit for avoiding the temptation to grandstand and manufacture some evening news sound bite. He asked smart, well-informed questions that pointed out the fundamental problem with the whole Crocker approach: Crocker can't give us anything precise in the way of a definition of a finished job in Iraq; our resources are finite; and in the end we are just not going to get George Bush's pony in Iraq."
The problem isn't Crocker's approach; it's his inarticulateness in front of the committee. He seems to have trouble stepping back from the minutia of the Iraqi political situation to answer Obama's big picture question. The obvious answer was "yes" to Obama's question of whether he would judge an imperfect Iraq a success if it remained relatively democratic and able to defend itself against AQI and other armed militant groups. No pony required.
The problem isn't Crocker's approach; it's his inarticulateness in front of the committee.
I think it's just that he stammers when he lies.
Fred is being hugely disingenuous when he says Crocker would accept a "democratic Iraq able to defend against AQ" as a definition of success.
If Crocker said that, Bush and Cheney would have his ass out of there in a hour.
The US could leave tomorrow and the Iraqis would have a "democratic government able to defend against Al Qaeda". That's obvious to anyone who knows anything about Iraq. "Al Qaeda" will never be able to convert most of the Iraqis into supporters of their program.
The issue is whether the Iraqi government would be able to do anything else to be stable, not to mention the neocon preference for supporting permanent bases, selling the oil cheap forever to US oil companies, and a lot of other things no Iraqi government that is democratically elected are ever going to do, such as attacking Iran for the US and supporting Israel.
MY writes:
We need to stay because of these various problems, so we need to stay, and what we're doing is working, and yet somehow there's no path from Point A to Point B
I know you folks on the left are beside yourselves that you may wind up forcing a withdrawal from Iraq -- as you prefer to call it: The War in Iraq(TM). The only problem is, you're still Americans and you're still considered responsible for what happens in Iraq whether our troops stay there or not. It's as simple as that. There's no forgiveness for changing course now as if there were some way to make the war that ousted Saddam Hussein "unhappen."
We broke it, we bought it, remember? The rest of the world the people of Iraq and its neighbors will not care whether or not you were all angels in opposing the war and high-fiving it all the way through the chaotic early years of the occupation.
As I see it, the war was won in its key objective. The aftermath was seriously bungled, but we wound up arranging for elections -- two of all things -- and the first popularly legitimized government, even if its popularity and efficacy have both been lacking. We have made a real effort to fix our past mistakes and solve the problems that have arisen.
If you say, Now that's all meaningless because the war itself was wrong for the outset, and we must therefore withdraw while blaming all of the mess on the Bush administration and its lackeys -- Well, sorry, but that just won't cut it.
Should we wind up with the left in control of the executive and legislative branches after November, I have a request for those of you with some sense of decency and responsibility: Please leave enough of our country intact so that there's enough of it left for when its rightful owners return to the helm! ;-)
Gotta love the asshat who uses a cute emoticon after a totally better-than-thou post as if that makes him less of an arrogant prick.
How much of the country is left intact after 8 years of neocons in the White House? How much do the Iraqis have left intact- those that aren't dead or displaced? I'll take my chances with the new guys, thanks.
MarkG:
The current chaos in Iraq will not end until there is a government accorded some measure of legitimacy by an overwhelming majority of the population. A large fraction of the population regards any government supported by a large US troop presence as inherently illegitimate. Therefore, the US presence is a primary factor driving violence in Iraq, and a US troop withdrawal is a necessary condition for its abatement.
"I think it's just that he stammers when he lies."
Yeah, that's it: Crocker's a political hack who learned Arabic and Persian and spent 30+ years in the foreign service risking his life in places like civil war-era Beirut, just so he could be in a position in 2008 to lie for a lame-duck president. Do you even believe your own comments?
Well, I certainly agree with MarkG that America is now faced with a very difficult no-win situation in Iraq, and that full American withdrawal is probably merely the least-bad of a whole set of extremely bad options. We have to be completely honest about these horribly complex difficulties, and not sugar-coat the reality. I could even imagine being ultimately persuaded that an American withdrawal is actually NOT the least bad option.
Therefore, as I've frequently pointed out, we need to start off with the easy and simple things first. Obviously, the first step is just to round up and summarily execute all the people responsible for the crazy Iraq War, which pretty much everyone now admits has been a gigantic disaster.
Then, once that's been taken care of, we can proceed to a nice, thoughtful "national dialogue" about exactly how best to withdraw, or perhaps even whether to entirely withdraw. With lots of "troublemakers" no longer around, I suspect that this discussion will prove rational, thoughtful, and very productive.
How much do the Iraqis have left intact- those that aren't dead or displaced?
Let's face it: We could easily stoop to the standards applied by our enemies in Iraq -- throw everything ya' got at 'em. We could, at the press of a button, resolve the whole Iraq and Iran mess for generations to come. We could apply greater firepower, death, and destruction to Baghdad, Basra, Najaf, etc. than two trips of the Wehrmacht and one trip of the Red Army did to Warsaw. If you opposed the war in the belief that it would cause death, consider how much more we could have caused had we not cared. In fact, the precision fire and life-saving technology, the more stringent rules for "collateral damage" that we can accept have made this war progressively better than the last ones we fought.
And no, there's no justification in claiming that murders perpetrated by Islamic militants on the Iraqi populace were caused by us -- we're not the ones wielding the scimitars to decapitate townsmen for allying with the terrorist; we're not the ones sending explosive-laden vehicles into crowded civilian marketplaces!
Why do we not do this to settle the argument? Because we are much more humane as a people, and we actually care about our fellow man. Our country has consistently reduced the amount of ancillary death and destruction from war to war. We have always cared about minimizing civilian deaths, loss of innocent life, and casualties amongst our own soldiers -- we have held ourselves to a higher standard with regard to our adversaries and our own history!
My concern is that if we beat a hasty retreat from Iraq while ignoring the potentially negative consequences, we will be turning against our own historical progress in the name of domestic political gamesmanship.
As I see it, the war was won in its key objective. Really? Because at this point, I'm not sure what the objective was in the first place... something about bin Laden's pockets being lined by Saddam, something about a smoking gun and a mushroom cloud...
I think you're right to note that we do need to be mindful of the impacts of our actions - but you conveniently ignore that the "rightful owners" ignored that in the first fucking place.
And for what it's worth, this country, as I was once told, is based on a Constitution and an understanding that no one is above the law. Something that the "rightful owners" seem to think they can get around if they get some enthusiastic but small-time lawyer to write a memo.
I'd support hillary. Love her smile and her confidence. She always has a positive attitude and that is what makes her outstanding. Everytime I signed in the site ***Mixedfriends.com*** and some men were talking about her and said she is
attractive.
I give Obama credit for avoiding the temptation to grandstand and manufacture some evening news sound bite.
At first, I was unimpressed that he didn't make more of a grand speech. I wanted him to make a brilliant point that was both obvious and enlightening and penetrated to the depths of the low information voters. But on reflection, I think Dan and Matt are correct. Like any good lawyer, Obama is building a case and this was merely a deposition. He'll take this case before the jury in the fall. I thought the "parade of horribles" line was pretty good.
Crocker stammers to kill time.
As I see it, the war was won in its key objective. Really?
Yes, really. The first key objective was for Saddam Hussein to be factually removed from power. The roots of this objective go all the way back to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed by Bill Clinton. The ultimatum before the invasion required Saddam & Sons to "abdicate" and leave the country. He failed to comply and was removed within three weeks.
Just Karl - Although I don't have Crocker's biography in front of me, I thought Crocker did a good job. He didn't seem to dance around answers in the clips I've seen (so far Voinovich and Obama and Webb). You can call it "killing time", but I think its the same as all the "uhs" that Obama uses. Just buying time to conjure up the best word.
That being said, I thought "parade of horribles" was a - for lack of a better term - poetic line. I don't see it being used in a campaign speech, though.
MarkG - Wonderful job of whitewashing. I'm not an idiot - I know that the removal of Saddam was one of the objectives, but you're being quite the revisionist here. If Saddam's removal - the "key objective" - on it's own accounts for victory and just cause in and of itself, why did we need the pretext of September 11th and the false pretense of connections to al Qaeda and impending doom for the president to feel like he had a compelling case for war?
I'll answer that for you: because he didn't.
Ugh, I suck at Engrish. It should read "If Saddam's removal - the "key objective" - stands as victory and a just cause in and of itself..."
If I ever start a blog, I hope it never becomes popular enough by people telling me how hot Hillary is.
Should read:
If I ever start a blog, I hope it never becomes popular enough to be spammed by people telling me how hot Hillary is.
MarkG introduces a novel line of argument: a state can be justified in waging a criminal war of aggression on the grounds that it is capable of waging an even more criminal war of aggression. Under this doctrine, the 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary, for example, is easily justified by Soviet possession of nuclear weapons.
socctty,
Parade of Horribles is a law school term, at least that's the first and last place I'd heard it until now. I've always loved it. And I would love it if it seeped out into the general population. Let's do our best!
why did we need the pretext of September 11th [...] for the president to feel like he had a compelling case for war?
The answer is that we didn't. Why the administration chose to highlight that? I dunno. Target of opportunity? I never bought it, although several findings since have strongly supported the hypothetical put out at the time. Besides, we were certain that Hussein supported terrorists -- we knew as much because he rewarded the families of suicide bombers whose children blew themselves up on civilian buses in Israel.
MarkG introduces a novel line of argument: a state can be justified in waging a criminal war of aggression on the grounds that it is capable of waging an even more criminal war of aggression.
Multiple red herrings on your part. My line of argument was only that Saddam had to be removed. No, might does not make right. And the might that Saddam tried to project did not make him right -- or give him the right -- either.
Ignoring the silly "criminal war of aggression" nonsense for the moment, my argument has always been simply that we could no longer accept Saddam's multiple threats to the region and to the broader world by implication of his attempts to manipulate oil production in the region.
Saddam Hussein was a bad man, no argument. George W. Bush, whose brutal and unprovoked assault on the people of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of tens (probably hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis, is...
MarkG you are an apologist for a brutal war of aggression. There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the national security of the United States. Only a moron continues to believe otherwise given the mountain of hindsight evidence.
The silly argument is entirely on your side. You have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was able to project a realistic threat to his neighbors in 2003. To claim otherwise is to fall victim to the love of the sound of your fingers typing out idiocies.
Demonstrate how, in 2003, Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone. Paying for suicide bombers does not an existential threat make, so try something substantive. (oops, I'm talking to an apologist for bombing the fuck out of the innocent Iraqis - there are simply no substantive arguments that can support such a position).
several findings since have strongly supported the hypothetical put out at the time
Oh, you must mean the "confessions" produced under "enhanced interrogation techniques" about Prague and whatnot, right?
Although it's relevant that the administration highlighted that, as you say, you ignore the root of what I'm getting at: the president knew he didn't have the political opportunity to invade Iraq until September 11th. Neither of us would doubt that the president wanted to invade Iraq before he was even elected. But here's my point: the case for war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq could not have been sold to the American public because it is, on it's own merits, a pretty shitty argument for war. It wasn't until the president could equate in the eyes of the American public one evil Arab-looking guy to another evil Arab-looking guy, and then extrapolate that the two were linked and thus they were both imminent threats to our security.
The conclusion that this brings me to is that your suggestion that what we have now in Iraq is a good thing is flawed, because there's no way the American public would have approved of this if the only reason to go into Iraq in the first place was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Do you concede that?
Demonstrate how, in 2003, Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone.
Only the contrary can now be demonstrated. Nevertheless, along with the intelligence agencies of our allies, the documents reviewed for the Duelfer Report showed that Saddam required his own subordinates to keep threatening programs going -- presumably because he sensed he could undermine the Security Council and get us off his back, giving him free rein to intimidate his neighbors.l
Paying for suicide bombers does not an existential threat make, so try something substantive.
Oh, but it does strongly indicate Saddam's preferred methods and his promise of future action.
Let's take this bullshit apart piece by piece.
MarkG: "We broke it, we bought it, remember?"
That's your notion, not mine, or any one else with a brain. Sometimes when something is broken, it's regarded as broken, and tossed in the trash or at least not regarded as fixable. Iraq qualifies.
The more the US flails around like a bull in a China shop, the worse the situation gets. Now we're fighting for one side of Iranian-backed militias against the MORE POPULAR group of Iranian-backed militias. Does this sound like "fixing" anything to you, stupid?
"The rest of the world the people of Iraq and its neighbors will not care whether or not you were all angels in opposing the war and high-fiving it all the way through the chaotic early years of the occupation."
They won't give a fuck that you were mistaken about Saddam's WMDs, or that you wanted to bring "democracy" to Iraq (which they fully recognize was a lie anyway), or even that you just wanted the oil. They still hate the US and will continue to do so for the next several Iraqi generations. They will do so whether or not US troops are physically present in Iraq to get shot and blown up. So it would seem reasonable to remove US troops from that environment on the simple grounds of common fucking sense.
"As I see it, the war was won in its key objective. The aftermath was seriously bungled,"
The "key objective" was a lie from day one. The (alleged) "key objective" was to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs - which they were not doing and had not been doing for some time, and that was a known fact to anybody who had any intellectual honesty and knowledge (as opposed to Bush and Cheney), and once the UNSCOM inspectors cleared them of such, would not be able to do since a monitoring program was also in the cards.
As for the aftermath, plenty of people with brains knew that it would be bungled and said so. It was morons like you who thought otherwise.
"but we wound up arranging for elections -- two of all things -- and the first popularly legitimized government, even if its popularity and efficacy have both been lacking."
We only had elections because Grand Ayatollah Sistani forced them on the Bushies. Also, what seems to be wrong with a statement that says the government was "popularly legitimized" but then says it "popularity has been lacking"? Can you read?
Again, we're now fighting for the least popular government in Iraqi history (even compared to Saddam, who at least "made the trains run on time") against the MORE POPULAR nationalist groups.
"We have made a real effort to fix our past mistakes and solve the problems that have arisen."
Bullshit. We spent the first four years fucking up regularly, then last year as the consequences of that made it the worst year for US AND Iraqi casualties, we decided to fuck up some more and pay off the insurgents. Then this year we decided to support one band of Iranian-backed militias against the MORE POPULAR band of Iranian-backed militias. If you call this "fixing our past mistakes", you are brain dead.
"If you say, Now that's all meaningless because the war itself was wrong for the outset, and we must therefore withdraw while blaming all of the mess on the Bush administration and its lackeys -- Well, sorry, but that just won't cut it."
And who the fuck are you to say what will or won't cut it? This war is costing the US taxpayer close to $150 billion a year, plus at least one thousand US casualties a year, plus probably another five or ten thousand US injuries a year, plus it costs the Iraqis much more than that or that can be tabulated. Nearly twenty percent of the country is dead or displaced. And you think some bullshit about "we broke it, we own it" is somehow going to change or justify that? You're a moron.
Here is Ryan Crocker's bio:
Ryan Crocker was confirmed as Ambassador to Iraq on March 7, 2007. He assumed Chief of Mission duties at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on March 29, 2007 after serving as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan from October 2004 to March, 2007. He served previously as the International Affairs Advisor at the National War College, where he joined the faculty in 2003. From May to August 2003, he was in Baghdad as the first Director of Governance for the Coalition Provisional Authority. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from August 2001 to May 2003, and served previously as Ambassador to Syria (1998-2001), Ambassador to Kuwait (1994-1997) and Ambassador to Lebanon (1990-1993). Since joining the Foreign Service in 1971, he also has had assignments in Iran, Qatar, Iraq and Egypt, as well as Washington. He was assigned to the American Embassy in Beirut during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the bombings of the embassy and the Marine barracks in 1983.
He grew up in an Air Force family, attending schools in Morocco, Canada and Turkey, as well as the U.S. He received a B.A. in English in 1971 and an honorary Doctor of Laws degree in 2001 from Whitman College (Washington).
Ambassador Crocker received the Presidential Distinguished Service Award in 1994, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service in 1997 and the Presidential Meritorious Service Award in 1999 and 2003. He also holds the State Department Distinguished Honor Award, Award for Valor, three Superior Honor Awards and the American Foreign Service Association Rivkin Award. In January 2002, he was sent to Afghanistan to reopen the American Embassy in Kabul. He subsequently received the Robert C. Frasure Memorial Award for "exceptional courage and leadership" in Afghanistan. In September 2004, President Bush conferred on him the personal rank of Career Ambassador, the highest in the Foreign Service.
"A large fraction of the population regards any government supported by a large US troop presence as inherently illegitimate."
A large fraction of the Iraqi population (a majority, actually) voted for parties that want a continued U.S. presence, at least until they judge they are able to do without one. This is the position of the major Sunni and Kurdish parties, and it's the opinion of the major Shiite parties except for Sadr's party. If your argument is that Iraqis think that Sadr's party is more legitimate than the rest of the government, this raises the question of why the Iraqi electorate gave 90% of the seats in the legislature to non-Sadr parties.
Bush has told us that nobody could be worse than Saddam Hussein - although at providing security,jobs, electricty, water and fuel Hussein was better than Bush has been up to now. Given McCain's one hundred years, Bush may yet pull ahead. In any case, if Hussein was an unparallelled bad guy and tyrant, why should the U.S. be concerned about leaving Iraq now? Is it the argument of the neoocons that, given their freedom by the great emancipator Bush (with the help of the U.S. soldiers), the Iraqis will embrace tyranny again as soon as they are left alone to? Hussein and cohorts have been either imprisoned or hanged. Since the Iraqi Sunnis (former insurgents) seem to be able to rout Al Qaeda if you give them each a few bucks a day, it seems the only reason to stay in Iraq is to keep in place an obedient puppet.
The conclusion that this brings me to is that your suggestion that what we have now in Iraq is a good thing is flawed, because there's no way the American public would have approved of this if the only reason to go into Iraq in the first place was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Do you concede that?
No, I don't concede that. For the simple fact that a majority of our popularly elected officials in 1998 believed that removing Hussein was an imperative. The vast number of these representatives had to "face the music" of their constituents right away. Arguably, supporting the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was a way to ensure reelection.
Thus spake the people -- in their infinite wisdom. ;-)
Fred - I forget which elections they were... the elections that you're referring to, are they the ones where the huge Sunni party sat out in protest? If they are, I say that throws a big ol' wrench into things.
Sometimes when something is broken, it's regarded as broken, and tossed in the trash or at least not regarded as fixable. Iraq qualifies.
Fine, Richard Steven Hack, then please tell us whether or not you have any policy proposals, what those potential proposals might be, and what you expect those proposals to achieve. For starters, who do you think are our allies and adversaries, and how should we deal with them?
Hint: If you want the rest of the world to like you, you'd better apply for citizenship elsewhere, no matter what you suggest.
MarkG - Don't you think your measured, rose-colored walk back through history to the Iraq Liberation Act is evidence of just how weak your argument is? For what it's worth...
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
It did not support being the primary actor in regime change. It was not a rain check for a future war with Iraq. It was a statement that the US Government would support Iraqi-based third-parties' attempts for regime change.
You STILL avoid acknowledging that war in Iraq wasn't even a legitimate option until Sept 11th, because the US public wouldn't have bought it on September 10th, because Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our security or the sovereignty of any ally of ours.
Basically, you're wrong.
"Fred - I forget which elections they were... the elections that you're referring to, are they the ones where the huge Sunni party sat out in protest? If they are, I say that throws a big ol' wrench into things."
The election I was referring to -- the one that elected the current legislature -- was not boycotted by the Sunnis. It had the highest turnout of any of the elections, at 80%.
You STILL avoid acknowledging that war in Iraq wasn't even a legitimate option until Sept 11th, because the US public wouldn't have bought it on September 10th, because Saddam Hussein was not a threat to our security or the sovereignty of any ally of ours.
The war in Iraq was a legitimate option on Sept. 10 because Hussein was a threat (by way of his division of the Security Council -- sanction-busting oil to Elf, etc. -- at the very least), public opinion by way of blaming the US for the Iraqi children dying for lack of medicine (while he used UN funds to build palaces), and because Hussein was continuing to violate all of the terms of the UN-based terms of his surrender after Desert Storm (full openness and disclosure for all UN inspectors). Basically, Hussein was spitting in the face of the rules he had originally agreed to live by.
Lights out in MarkG-Land for now, folks: appreciated the heartfelt and sincere debate. Catch ya in another thread -- not a threat, a promise! :-D
The war in Iraq apparently wasn't a legitimate option on Sept 10th because the President wasn't pushing for it with the American people. If he was such an imminent threat, why the delay?
To suggest that we should go to war against a country because the leader of said country blames us for deaths inside their country is absurd.
And your argument that we were justified to go to war to enforce rules set on Iraq by the UN (essentially to enforce the UN's authority) by ignoring the UN's decision not to go to war and usurping their authority is equally ridiculous.
But you're asleep, I suppose.
Fred: "A large fraction of the Iraqi population (a majority, actually) voted for parties that want a continued U.S. presence, at least until they judge they are able to do without one."
Bullshit.
The Shia factions were on a slate approved by Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Shia were virtually ORDERED to vote for that slate to insure that the Shia gained control of the government.
The Sunnis mostly abstained from voting in protest.
Your notion that this means the average Iraqi wants the US to stay is so stupid I can barely believe you said it.
Sistani himself has said that a permanent US occupation - and that means any permanent US bases as well - is completely unacceptable.
In any event, Iraqi polls clearly show that the majority of Iraqis want the US out. As for whether they want the US out only when Iraq is "stable", that is irrelevant, since the political situation clearly demonstrates that Iraq cannot be stable under current conditions, i.e., with the presence of US troops, the lack of reconciliation between Sunni and Shia, and the lack of a credible national government which has any respect at all on the Iraqi street. That the average Iraqi doesn't understand this any more than the average American does not surprise me.
Richard: You're a bit confused --- I don't think most of that applies to the December 2005 elections. It doesn't matter, though; a stable nation must have a government that's regarded as marginally legitimate by the vast majority of the population, not just 51%.
MarkG: "Fine, Richard Steven Hack, then please tell us whether or not you have any policy proposals, what those potential proposals might be, and what you expect those proposals to achieve. For starters, who do you think are our allies and adversaries, and how should we deal with them?"
No problemo.
1) Policy One: No military support for ANY government in the world, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
2) No foreign aid (other than strictly humanitarian) support for ANY government in the world, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Pakistan.
3) Demand immediate unilateral nuclear disarmament from Israel.
4) Immediate withdrawal of all US and NATO troops from Afghanistan.
5) Immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.
6) Immediate withdrawal of all US troops and bases from the Gulf region.
7) Immediate demand at the UN that Israel withdraw to at least the 1967 borders, and preferably the 1948 borders, and preferably that the UN reconsider the partitioning of Palestine altogether and instead implement the original Palestinian Mandate and work toward a single Palestinian state with border guarantees and civil and religious rights guarantees for both Palestinians and Jews.
8) Immediate demand that Israel remove all settlements from the West Bank, remove all checkpoints and barriers between the West Bank and Gaza and Israel and tear down "the Wall".
9) Immediate demand that Israel cede the Shebaa Farms region to Lebanon.
10) Immediate demand that Israel cede the Golan Heights to Syria.
11) Immediate demand that Israel cease all interference with the Palestinians, cease all involvement in the Palestinian political situation, and turn over all moneys or other assets due the Palestinians.
12) Immediate offer to Iran to provide a guarantee against regime change by either the US or Israel, plus assistance with its nuclear energy program, and normalization of diplomatic relations, in return for intrusive inspections by the IAEA of the Iranian nuclear energy program, to include the signing of the Additional Protocol, as well as assistance in stabilizing Iraq via negotiations.
13) Offer the $150 billion a year we're spending on occupying Iraq to the Iraqis or NGOs willing to go to Iraq and rebuild it, as long as financial accountability can be assured.
Those ought to do for starters. Five minutes after we do those things, bin Laden will take the US off the target list.
As for your hint, as a William Burroughs character once said, "I don't care if people don't like me. I assume most of them don't. The question is, what are they in a position to do about it?"
Taking the US off the Al Qaeda terrorist hit list is all the US needs to do to "deal" with "terrorism".
Love him very much. Lots of my online friends on 'Blackcentury.com' love him too. You can share your ideas with them if you want. It is a servious interracial dating service.
I like Richard Steven Hack's ideas.
Thanks, Emma, I'd hate to use an un-serious interracial dating service.
More, er, seriously: MarkG, isn't "we broke it, we bought it" a rather unfortunate metaphor when applied to another country? The whole problem with this 'we have to stay in and fix everything' mindset is that it assumes that the Iraqis have no initiative or desires of their own-- they're only the semi-willing puppets of the regimes controlling them, be it the US or Iran. This is colonialist, offensive, and demonstrably untrue.
Why is anyone bothering with MarkG? Just pat him on his head and send him off with the rest of the 28%ers that still believe they can find a pony in Iraq.
Clinton's questioning was far, far better than Obamas -- much more incisive and to the point. Landed some real blows. Obama was rambling and unfocused.
Unfortunately, Matt is so in the tank for Obama that he can't be bothered to even mention Clinton.
Because, Fausto, he knows more than you guys who just parrot the script from the no-nothing echo chamber without the slightest indication that you know the history on this matter.
We went to war with Iraq in 1991 because it invaded, raped, and annexed UN member and US ally Kuwait--pretty fair grounds. The UN authorization specified ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, AND "restore the area to peace and stability". The latter was obviously not accomplished while Iraq was in manifest, comprehensive violation of the ceasefire agreement and subsequent Chapter VII Resolutions, and while we were conducting ongoing combat operations enforcing the embargo, itself an act of war that killed perhaps a million innocent Iraqis. Just because some people don't have a clue about what was going on in Iraq between 1991 and 2003 doesn't make these facts disappear.
socctty's question ("why the delay") is a good one. In fact, our several governments tried every way possible to kick the can down the road in spite of consistent majority support from the US public to "finish the job" from 1991 right through the invasion. After 9/11, a BIG majority of the public and their elected representatives from both parties saw that it was no longer acceptable to have an overt enemy regime in control of the keystone state in the region producing most of the oil and most of the terrorism. No complicated conspiracy theory needed here.
MarkG, when confronted with the fact that Saddam Hussein was no threat to anyone's national security does what all the supporters of the assault on the Iraqi people do - lies.
But that's expected. It's what Robert Powell does to pretend that the War On Iraq has been raging for 17 years. If he were right then Bush could easily have won a resolution at the UN for his actions. As it was, there was no vote because Bush had chosen to make an unprovoked assault on the innocent people of Iraq and most of the world recognized it as the aggressive war that it was.
Let me guess--Circus Freak doesn't know any of the tens of thousands of US service personnel deployed to the Greater Persian Gulf 1991-2003 because of Iraq, or any of their families; or anyone connected to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed during this period.
Nor does he have any good knowledge of the UN process, including the various Chapter VII Resolutions, the interests underlying the French betrayal after Resolution 1441, the text of Lord Goldsmith's finding for Parliament or any of the similar legal findings by most of the world's important democracies that supported enforcement.
And etc. It's enough for some to know simply that the US represents The Bad Guys.
Comments closed April 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I rather liked his approach. Low key, respectful of their efforts while simultaneously disdainful of the decision that made their efforts necessary, but got to the heart of the problem in a way that none of the others have.
Posted by wvng | April 8, 2008 5:46 PM