« Obstacles to Unity | Main | Sam Nunn » How Long in Iraq?05 Jun 2008 09:05 am
Here's CBS's poll on how long Americans would like to see our troops stay in Iraq. John McCain's supporters can try to spin his 100 years remark any way they'd like, but it's clear enough that McCain's one of the thirty percent who think longer than two years is acceptable. Comments (73)
Well, you go to war with the minority you have. 
This sort of nonsense would be funny if it wasn't taken seriously by wishful thinkers and others who should know better. Virtually no one "likes" the idea of fighting a war, or would prefer that it take a longer rather than a shorter time to achieve a satisfactory conclusion. Perhaps the question would be better phrased, "willing to abandon our allies, our interests, and our honor in order to give our enemies a huge victory in their heartland, incidentally putting a loaded gun to the head of the world economy."
Come on, reading a few NYT editorials doesn't make you an expert on Iraq or any other issue. What is with liberals and their affection for direct democracy; don't they realize the populace majority also opposes some reasonable liberal beliefs (e.g. immigration and abortion). I wish we could go back to when elections were based on character and experience and when it was considered rude to discuss policy issues in campaigns.
One in five think McCain's 100 years is just dandy. What percentage of the 53% thinking up to two years is OK could be swayed to increase their level of patience if presented "facts" from an administration showing cause? A good many? Probably. Democrats are mistaken in some measure to presume Americans are a peaceful society wanting harmony with their neighbors. We're xenophobic imperialists at heart, glorifying in war. Our conquering of the western United States and attendant slaughter of Native Americans was a war waged with joy and gusto. We feel no more remorse for our actions than that of a child stepping on a bug. The butchers of Haditha walk. Bombed out victims of Iraqi wedding parties are bribed to shut up and go away with $100 dollar bills embezzled from wayward pallets of U.S. treasury funds. There is no consolation in this poll. We're murderers, gleefully practicing rape and genocide. Go ahead, step away from the sink, it's doing no good trying to wash your hands.
Lets see, our allies are also Iran's allies, our honor was already sacrificed on a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners, our supposed interest (excuse) in Iraq keeps changing, and I don't see how the oil production in Iraq could get much worse. Other than that I agree with robert.
The truth is that 1 year from now, people will still have 2 years as the upper limit of what they're willing to put up with when it comes to Iraq. Had it not been for McCain's "100 years" gaffe, he'd have been able to become president and keep us in Iraq for his entire presidency simply by drawing things out 1 year at a time, with the public ready to lose patience 1 or 2 years after that.
Perhaps the question would be better phrased, "willing to abandon our allies, our interests, and our honor in order to give our enemies a huge victory in their heartland, incidentally putting a loaded gun to the head of the world economy." Yo moron, that's what we did by getting INTO Iraq. Also, that thing in the middle of your face is your nose.
Gordon Gekko, Matt isn't arguing that withdrawing our troops from the Iraqi civil war is the right thing to do just because the American people support doing so. He is just pointing out the American people do in fact support doing so. And that is why the spin of the likes of robert powell isn't going to work for McCain, as indeed it didn't work for the GOP in 2006. That said, I would note that it is in fact usually a bad idea for a democratic country to try to fight wars which are not necessary for national defense when the populace opposes doing so. Consequently, I would in fact suggest the widespread domestic opposition to our continued participation in the Iraqi civil war contributes to the case for withdrawing.
(I decided to help you out with that second one because I realize it's dark inside your colon.)
The funny thing about these polls is that if you ask the same question a year or two from now, you often get back almost the same percentages. For instance, people keep saying the want to reduce troop levels 6 months or a year from now. When the same poll is taken a year later, virtually same results.
Matt isn't arguing that withdrawing our troops from the Iraqi civil war is the right thing to do just because the American people support doing so. The necessity of popular support for foreign interventions was exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, and wayward presidents cum generals ignoring the popular will was exactly what they were afraid of.
It all depends on what the meaning of the word "large" is, libtard. Thanks for playing!
steve duncan, You write: "What percentage of the 53% thinking up to two years is OK could be swayed to increase their level of patience if presented 'facts' from an administration showing cause? A good many? Probably." Well, we don't have to speculate, because the current Administration has been trying to do exactly that. So, the 63% (not 53%) who want us out in less than two years is the number you get AFTER such efforts to persuade the American people to be more patient, not the number you get from BEFORE such efforts. In other words, the American people's patience for fighting in the Iraqi civil war has long been exhausted (indeed, it was exhausted by no later than 2006). And I see no reason to believe McCain has the ability to be more persuasive on this subject than anyone in the current Administration. Indeed, he has already been one of the most prominent people trying to persuade the American people up to now, so from a broader perspective this is pretty much in the category of the GOP rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I wish we could go back to when elections were based on character and experience and when it was considered rude to discuss policy issues in campaigns. This is a spoof, right?
In some sense, it's not surprising that lots of people continue to say 6 months-1 year, even after several of those periods have passed. For example, if our policy became "withdrawl" instead of "indefinite occupation" at this very second today, it would likely take that amount of time before troops would actually finish withdrawing. In other words, they may want troops out now, but recognize that it will take a while to get our shit together. Hence the rolling timeline. I dunno how many people might have that mindset, but having conducted some surveys (economic valuation), you'd be surprised to hear the stuff that goes through people's heads as they decide how to respond to a question.
"And who were these people in the poll? Waitresses, truck drivers, and secretaries? Water delivery people? Would you want any of these dolts making our very serious policy decisions?"
It is indeed comical how those holding out for victory still imagine their argument has yet to play out and be decided upon. The continued American military presence in Iraq shows ongoing contempt for the democratic will. The argument for it has been lost, though this isn't to say a majority won't still vote for a pro-war candidate for more complicated reasons.
Jeff Boghosian, That actually makes perfect sense when you realize that many people have accepted the argument that our withdrawal from Iraq is going to take some time to complete once it is started. So, those people keep answering the same in subsequent polls, because each time they are asked it remains true we haven't started the withdrawal process, and so it remains true it will take some time.
In some sense, it's not surprising that lots of people continue to say 6 months-1 year, even after several of those periods have passed. For example, if our policy became "withdrawl" instead of "indefinite occupation" at this very second today, it would likely take that amount of time before troops would actually finish withdrawing. In other words, they may want troops out now, but recognize that it will take a while to get our shit together. Hence the rolling timeline. I dunno how many people might have that mindset, but having conducted some surveys (economic valuation), you'd be surprised to hear the stuff that goes through people's heads as they decide how to respond to a question.
Yeah, the interesting thing about this poll isn't some kind of clash with McCain (or his supporters) views. It is that the American public have consistently - for years now - supported staying in Iraq for at least another year. If you looked at a poll from 2 years ago, I'm sure a majority would have said to get the troops out within 2 years. But now we have a poll with a majority of the American public supporting keeping "large numbers" of troops for at least another year. If 6 months is a "Friedman Unit" - I wonder what is an "American Public Unit" - i.e., that amount of time that, consistently, year after year, the American public is willing to keep troops in Iraq for? (Also, contra to Matthew's spin, the poll doesn't say anything in opposition to McCain's views. McCain hasn't said anything about "large numbers" of troops, and his statement about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years was predicated on no troops being killed there (like our large bases in Germany or Japan) - something that this poll question doesn't ask about.)
Al, Nice try. But the American people don't support staying "at least" another year. They support getting out NO LATER than two years from now. So the only acceptable position for a majority of the American people is to have a plan for getting out within two years at the latest (and a plurality want it sooner than that). Accordingly, unless McCain comes up with such a plan, he is at odds with a large majority of the American people. But if you think the GOP can win in 2008 with McCain's position, be my guest ... it will be 2006 all over again.
Pffft. Leave it to the cowardly surrendercrat pollsters to leave out the option of "Never".
The other thing to note is that, with a solid majority of the American public supporting keeping large numbers of American troops in Iraq for another year, there is a clear repudiation of the Obama/Yglesias position of drawing down our troops immediately. The surely results from the American public's recognition that, on the most important foreign policy question during Obama's tenure in the Senate - the surge - Obama was completely wrong (as was Yglesias), and Bush, McCain, and the Republicans were completely right. What this shows is that people like Obama and Yglesias simply have bad judgement on foreign policy, and people like Bush, McCain, and, well, me, have good judgement on foreign policy. We got the judgement correct; Obama/Yglesias got the judgement wrong.
What it would take to convince me would be: What will the Iraqis do in five more years, or ten more years, that they haven't done for the last five years, or in the year it will take for a phased pullout? Our guys have performed SPECTACULARLY well in the field. The screwups were almost all from the Pentagon/White House. And the Iraqis themselves failing to recognize that a civil war means 1 in 6 Iraqis go into the ground. The Sunnis particularly were rock stupid for bringing Al Qaeda into the equation, spraying gasoline onto hot coals. McCain can't convince me. The people who will convince me are the IRAQIS saying "We want the Americans to stay. Please stay. We're stepping up. This is what we are going to do to allow you to bring your sons and husbands home in two years, or three."
Al, the question is "how long are you willing to keep a large number of troops in Iraq." Are you saying McCain would not be willing to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq for two more years? Perhaps the 100 years comment does not indicate this by itself (although if that was Matt's point he would have said outright that McCain was in the 20% who said "as long as it takes"), but I think it's pretty uncontroversial for Matt to suggest that he's not among the 63% who think two years is too long. I'd be shocked to hear McCain set a two-year deadline.
DTM, yeah, a bit of an addition brain fart there, huh? Anyway, your point about Americans already being persuaded until they bleed from the ears and eyes on these wars is noted. However, it never ceases to amaze how some new justification for maintaining the killing can be trotted out and the public is reinvigorated for a few months. How many reasons were given to start this war originally and then new ones doled out as the last was proven false? WMDs, Saddam's abuse, murder and torture of the citizenry, women's rights, Iraq's partnership with al Qaida, Iraq's strategic position to the gulf and oil reserves, Iraq's threats to Israel, Iraq's refusal to allow international inspections of nuclear facilties, on and on and on. And guess what, we're still there. The U.S. public's loss of patience with the war hasn't forced us to withdraw. There are no mass marches in the streets, no impeachment proceedings, no jailing of the plotters, liars and thieves that embroiled us in this mess. Our troops and expenditures are nearly at their peak yet our relative success and prospects for leaving are little better than they were five years ago. I stand by my assertion this nation's public will go along with this bullshit for decades. All that's needed is an occasional fear fix, a politician to lay claim those opposing the effort are traitors or quislings. Goebbels had the routine well perfected. Just parrot his methods and Americans will stand like lemmings at the edge of a cliff, waiting their turn for the plunge.
I would like to know what percentage of the 20% "as long as it takes" crowd has family and/or friends serving in Iraq? The fact that one does or does not have them is not necessary to have an opinion but it would be interesting to look at.
The media's "Character & Experience" (i.e. I would drink w/ bush, & he was a weak governor in the weakest government in the US) & the worst Supremes decision ever -> Worst President Ever.
McBush already set the deadline @ 5 years. Remember that disturbingly lunatic "I have a dream" speech last month? Peace in Iraq & Iran, stable US govt, lower taxes, balanced budget" drivel--all w/out discussing the mechanisms or steps to get there?
Bob Oso, it wouldn't surprise if a majority of the 100 year crowd had relatives serving (or killed, wounded & maimed) in Iraq or Afghanistan. I've talked with many military families and very few want to admit a loved one is serving or has died in vain. Often there is a strong tradition of military service going back generations and the logic or necessity of a conflict isn't to be questioned. It will not be military or their familes that agitate to bring this war to a close. "Forward, the Light Brigade!" Tennyson
Wow! The dead-enders certainly came in a flock here. What do they think the point of this Iraq idiocy is, anyway? And how do they expect it to be paid for -- unless they like giving an enormous bill to their kids?
Robert Powell - I suppose a pragmatic case can be made for keeping our troops in Iraq. I don't agree with that case, but it can be made. But absolutely NO case can be made for keeping us in Iraq on the basis of "honor". In order to possess honor, a man or a nation must do certain things. Things like: tell the truth even if it is not to your advantage; value the lives of innocents more than "force protection" imperatives; scrupulously account for all resources used to conduct operations; treat captives with courtesy and dignity away from the battlefield; etc. We haven't done those things, so there is no point to pretending that our honor is still at stake in Iraq. The Bush administration cast it away long ago. The people who talk about "honor" in Iraq apparently define honor SOLELY as "we don't retreat, even when it is strategically advantageous to do so". And sorry, but that definition of honor only flies in the Klingon Empire, which [in case you weren't aware of this] is an entirely fictional creation.
I think Robert Powell's evidence free allegation that "Virtually no one 'likes' the idea of fighting a war, or would prefer that it take a longer rather than a shorter time to achieve a satisfactory conclusion" is a common perspective, but one which certainly no one should feel compelled to adopt based on what some lunatics think is and isn't allowed to be honorably thought in U.S. politics else you're a dirty hippie lefty America hater Quisling blah blah blah. I think, for example, that Bush Jr. very much liked, and was personally entertained by, the thrilling notion of launching a great war. I don't have a lot of evidence for that, but there's certainly zero evidence that he ever behaved in any sort of manner suggesting that this was some option he considered heavily, or as involving potentially costly and ghastly consequences. I think it's quite a justified common sense conclusion to view Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld as callous pricks who didn't give the slightest damn about the harm into which they'd be putting our military, nor about the effects on Iraqi lives. People can certainly adopt another perspective, but with zero evidence, these bombastic allegations about what anyone should or shouldn't assume deserve to remain exactly where the commenter pulled them from originally, their a**.
Does anyone else remember how one argument in favor of invading Iraq was that we needed to start a war to implant a democracy in the Middle East because democracies rely upon the support of the population and won't start wars unnecessarily? Now, according to certain commenters above, we have to keep the war going despite the fact it doesn't have the support of the population. I suppose one logical way to resolve these contradictions would be to posit that the U.S. is not a democracy (or even a republic). Although this argument would be repulsive, it at least would have the "merit" of being consistent with right wingers' views of Presidential authority.
This poll is completely meaningless unless it can be confirmed that the entire sample was eating at an Applebee's while the polling was conducted.
maybe i missed it, but i don't think any of the pro-war comments here take into account how the IRAQIS feel about a lot term american troop presence. i would think that should enter into the conversation. it seems that malaki has backed away from his "you can leave anytime" comments from last summer, but a wide range of both shia and sunni groups don't want us there for the long haul. as an aside, i read where the maliki government is thinking of postponing any decision about perminant military bases and might perfer waiting to talk to our next president.
"'This is the great war of our times. It is going to take forty years,'" [Bush told Engel]. "Bush said in forty years the world would know if the war on terrorism, and conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, had reduced extremism, helped moderates, and promoted democracy." - Bush admits to Engel that going to war was a decision based on his personal instinct and not on any long-range strategy for the Mideast: "I know people are saying we should have left things the way they were, but I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don't care if it created more enemies. I had to act." No long term strategy. No care if the war created more enemies than it vanquished. Nuff said..........
Very interesting, but you, Mr. Yglesias, are the one who is spinning. This poll shows 51% of Americans would like our troops to stay in Iraq for from one to two years to as long as it takes.
Very interesting, but you, Mr. Yglesias, are the one who is spinning. This poll shows 51% of Americans would like our troops to stay in Iraq from one to two years to as long as it takes.
Al, Again, nice try. But Obama has always favored a gradual withdrawal, one which would begin immediately but not be completed for about 16 months. In fact, this is directly from his campaign website: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." So again, you are only fooling yourself if you think Obama doesn't have the majority position on this subject. And thus you and the other Bush loyalists will only have yourselves to blame when Election Night 2008 is just like Election Night 2006, but this time with a Democratic President being elected as well. steve duncan, I think you have to account for the fact that our Constitution is purposefully designed to make it hard for a small and/or transient majority to change the status quo in the face of resolute opposition from the minority. In this case, despite the 2006 elections handing control of both Houses of Congress to the Democrats (although barely in the Senate, since only 1/3 was up for election--one of the aforementioned countermajoritarian measures in the Constitution), President Bush has been able to use his veto to thwart Congress (the veto being another countermajoritarian measure). Meanwhile, the Republican minority in the Senate has made it impossible to remove him from office (the 2/3 majority in the Senate needed for removal being still another countermajoritarian measure). However, since a large and stable majority of the people do in fact want us to withdraw from the Iraqi civil war, they will eventually get their way. It just is going to take one more election (the one coming up). And to merge these two discussions together, if you look at public polling, the arguments offered by the Administration and its allies (like McCain) since 2006 haven't budged public opinion at all. Instead, I think the only effect of those arguments has been to keep the GOP from parting ways with the Administration, and the result of that will be the upcoming electoral bloodbath.
That's just dumb, Fred. That 21% wanting us out in one to two years cannot be included within a group that would let us be there forever, and you know it. That 21% wants us out in less than two years.
What foolish libs don't understand is that if we don't achieve victory in Iraq several things will happen: -Iran will fill the vacuum and consolidate their power in the region. -Sectarian strife will run rampant and kill hundreds of thousands. A death toll for which we will bear responsibly for. -Millions more will be made refugees. That will also be our fault. -Untold thousands (tens, hundreds, who knows?) will die from lack of the most basic medical services, unclean drinking water, no electricity, raw sewage, and the complete destruction of a society's infrastructure and civil institutions. Another more silent humanitarian crisis. -Al Qaeda will gain a huge recruitment poster. -The US will alienate our allies and the rest of the world. -Most importantly, our national honor will be permanently stained. We will come to be seen as some kind of sick joke by every other civilized nation in the world. God help us if any of this happens.
What foolish libs don't understand is that if we don't achieve victory in Iraq several things will happen: -Iran will fill the vacuum and consolidate their power in the region. -Sectarian strife will run rampant and kill hundreds of thousands. A death toll for which we will bear responsibly for. -Millions more will be made refugees. That will also be our fault. -Untold thousands (tens, hundreds, who knows?) will die from lack of the most basic medical services, unclean drinking water, no electricity, raw sewage, and the complete destruction of a society's infrastructure and civil institutions. Another more silent humanitarian crisis. -Al Qaeda will gain a huge recruitment poster. -The US will alienate our allies and the rest of the world. -Most importantly, our national honor will be permanently stained. We will come to be seen as some kind of sick joke by every other civilized nation in the world. God help us if any of this happens.
What foolish libs don't understand is that if we don't achieve victory in Iraq several things will happen: -Iran will fill the vacuum and consolidate their power in the region. -Sectarian strife will run rampant and kill hundreds of thousands. A death toll for which we will bear responsibly for. -Millions more will be made refugees. That will also be our fault. -Untold thousands (tens, hundreds, who knows?) will die from lack of the most basic medical services, unclean drinking water, no electricity, raw sewage, and the complete destruction of a society's infrastructure and civil institutions. Another more silent humanitarian crisis. -Al Qaeda will gain a huge recruitment poster. -The US will alienate our allies and the rest of the world. -Most importantly, our national honor will be permanently stained. We will come to be seen as some kind of sick joke by every other civilized nation in the world. God help us if any of this happens.
What foolish libs don't understand is that if we don't achieve victory in Iraq several things will happen: -Iran will fill the vacuum and consolidate their power in the region. -Sectarian strife will run rampant and kill hundreds of thousands. A death toll for which we will bear responsibly for. -Millions more will be made refugees. That will also be our fault. -Untold thousands (tens, hundreds, who knows?) will die from lack of the most basic medical services, unclean drinking water, no electricity, raw sewage, and the complete destruction of a society's infrastructure and civil institutions. Another more silent humanitarian crisis. -Al Qaeda will gain a huge recruitment poster. -The US will alienate our allies and the rest of the world. -Our national honor will be permanently stained. We will come to be seen as some kind of sick joke by every other civilized nation in the world. God help us if any of this happens.
I wonder what the percentages would be if Congress passed a tax surcharge to pay for the war, instead of using future generations as an ATM machine.
fuck, sorry about the multiple posts, the Atlantic's server is all screwy. Ruined my fucking point.
Most importantly, our national honor will be permanently stained. Our national honor has been permanently stained by Guantanamo. Our national honor has been permanently stained by our policy of maintaining secret prisons and then lying to our allies about it. Our national honor has been permanently stained by our refusal to abide by international treaties regarding torture and prisoner abuse. Our national honor has been permanently stained by our open declaration [thanks to John McCain's facilitation of the passage of the Military Commissions Act] that we have immunized all American personnel who committed acts of torture. Our national honor has been permanently stained by the fact that the Abu Ghraib scandal occurred, and then was whitewashed using the simple expedient of appointing a lead investigator who wasn't authorized to investigate the entire chain of command and related intelligence operations. You guys are a little late to show up and start taking an interest in our national honor, after you have utterly shredded it and defiled it. It's more than a little idiotic to assert that somehow withdrawing from Iraq - an action that world opinion, including that of our closest allies, would heartily endorse with a sigh of relief - would somehow be a stain on our honor in any way remotely comparable to what we've already done.
Dear dear12-year-old nyc, All of those things have already happened. But I have a time machine. Let's go back to 2002, when all of your concerns would have made sense. Boom shanka,
DTM, I would agree various post-invasion justifications for the war amount to slinging mud against a wall with damn little sticking as far as the public is concerned. I have one caveat though. In the recesses of many minds of those telling pollsters they want out or disagree with the war is a sizable kernel of doubt. I posit another terrorist event here would flip poll numbers, with majorities suddenly again believing now discredited rationales for the conflict. Recent idle (allegedly) musings on Newt Gingich's part about Bush needing to permit an occasional terrorist strike to maintain war support were not off their mark.
Cha cha cha and Brian, YEah, that was kinda the whole point of my little piece. sometimes a blog thread isn't the best way to capture the appropriate sarcasm and contempt I have for the "victory" crowd.
Um, guys (Brian?), I think dearleader has foisted a bit of oh so subtle sarcasm on the group. Or he's a witless twit. I doubt he'll lay claim to the latter so presume his intent was humor.
parody is the first casualty of multiple-post syndrome.
Sorry, my bad. You have to remember, guys, that war supporters have moved into post-sarcasm territory. The post in question would have been considered mild at LGF or RedState, and I utterly failed to pick up any parody markers on my first read.
steve duncan, It is hard to assess such hypotheticals. For example, in this case, exactly what connection are you imagining between Iraq and this terrorist attack? In fact, if the group in question was based elsewhere, such an attack could be a powerful argument in favor of the view that getting bogged down in Iraq has undermined our national security. Of course, I know that a lot of people believed there was a substantial connection between Iraq and 9/11, despite that not being true. But I am not sure that tactic would work again if there was no such connection. Indeed, the credibility of those who would make such an argument is now shot, the leader of the Democratic Party--which is now Obama--would speak out forcefully against that argument, and I think our blow-in-the-wind national media would support that argument's opponents (and thus, by coincidence, the truth) this time around.
I don't blame you I've read exactly similar posts elsewhere, and tried to write it as dry as possible, without tipping my hand too much to make the point that the only death and destruction that the warblogger--that oh so precious species of nerd--cares about is the theoretical kind that might happen if we leave Iraq, and none of the you know, actual carnage that has already occurred. There is not a single "nightmare" scenario regarding us getting out of Iraq that hasn't either already happened or made far more likely to happen by our invasion of Iraq. But perhaps the most important point to be made here (no sarcasm I promise) is that for all the hand wringing over completely amorphous visions of "what the American people want", even on supposedly liberal blogs, there is little to no mention of the primary actors in this situation, the Iraqi people. Our national opinion on "what to do" is meaningless compared to Iraqis, who by a large majority want us gone. We are the aggressor , we don't get to worry about our "interests" or "honor". We should try to get some kind of referendum that the Iraqi people could vote on, "Do you want us gone by the end of 2009" yes/no.
The other thing to note is that, with a solid majority of the American public supporting keeping large numbers of American troops in Iraq for another year, there is a clear repudiation of the Obama/Yglesias position of drawing down our troops immediately. This is circular, just like the Friedman units problem. If you keep on saying "just another year, just another year", you stay forever, which the public actually doesn't want. The Democrats need to start pointing this out, though.
DTM, I suppose my scenario involved Bush telling the American people that the perpetrators of any new terrorist event were somehow related to Iraq. Of course that would be regardless of the real genesis of the plot. The desperation to justify this clusterfuck must be high, especially in light of today's Phase Two intelligence committee release. Bush had no problem convincing the public Iraqis razed the twin towers. Syria could drop the Golden Gate Bridge and Bush would persuade the public Iraqis also did that, so long as it revitalized his claim of the propriety of invading them to begin with. Hell, news organizations throughout the land have touted the fact Saudi nationals were almost entirely responsible for 9/11. Yet today you can poll the public and get anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 answering it was Iraq that was behind the plot. Still. To this day. The capacity for willful ignorance has no bounds.
"And who were these people in the poll? Waitresses, truck drivers, and secretaries? Water delivery people? Would you want any of these dolts making our very serious policy decisions?" Posted by Shailagh Murray | June 5, 2008 10:14 AM These sound like average Americans to me. Why do you hate America?
You know what's more disgusting than lazy, gutless, rightwingers who pontificate from the comfort of their air-conditioned homes and offices about the need for others to fight "our" wars and equate "honor" with following draftdoging cowards like Bush & Cheney into the sewer as they drag the United State's reputation into a permanent level of well-earned disrespect, in their vain-glorious love for killing US troops to lift their impotent dicks in a vanity war that not only weakens American security but has made Osama Bin Laden an indisputable victor over the USA and a hero for wanna-be terrorists? Nothing! So if you share George Bush and Dick Cheney's complete disregard for the United States and you share their contempt for US troops, do us all a favor and fucking kill yourselves, you Goddamn rightwing pieces of shit!
Al writes: The [poll numbers] surely result from the American public's recognition that, on the most important foreign policy question during Obama's tenure in the Senate - the surge - Obama was completely wrong (as was Yglesias), and Bush, McCain, and the Republicans were completely right. What this shows is that people like Obama and Yglesias simply have bad judgement on foreign policy, and people like Bush, McCain, and, well, me, have good judgement on foreign policy. We got the judgement correct; Obama/Yglesias got the judgement wrong. Now the Iraq Parliament did pass some sort of a reconciliation bill. The interesting thing, though, was that the group that the bill was supposed to benefit, the Sunnis, were the group that opposed it. Not sure that's indicative of good governance. One year after the surge began the Iraqi government has only met three of the 18 benchmarks laid out last year. From a military standpoint, one of the major reasons that the surge succeeded as well as it did was that sadr's militia honored the cease-fire.
I wish we could go back to when elections were based on character and experience and when it was considered rude to discuss policy issues in campaigns. You mean back in the good old days before1858?
Baxter: "Our guys have performed SPECTACULARLY well in the field." No - they're murdered at least 300,000 Iraqis and the entire war is responsible for a million more. Not to mention the 4,000 US dead and the scores of thousands injured and the hundreds of thousands with PTSD - which is why most US citizens want the troops out. They've totally cocked up the entire operation. They had no goddamn clue how to conduct this war, nor the clue that it shouldn't have been conducted in the first place. Had the US gone in, knocked off Saddam and turned around and left immediately, we'd be way ahead now. Had the US not gone in at all, none of this would have happened, and nobody would care except the Zionist freaks and the neocons (and the oil companies and the military-industrial complex). Meanwhile, one hopes that when McCain is elected President (thanks to Hillary and the Iran war) and continues to prosecute Cheney's Iran war, somebody takes Al and ties a bunker buster to his ass and drops him on Natanz. If we're going to fuck up big time, might as well get some benefit from it.
By the way, exactly who would we be "surrendering to" by leaving Iraq? Does anyone seriously believe that (being verryy generous here) 50,000 people that call themselves "Al Qaida in Iraq" could take over a country of 25 million (er...more like 20 million now, I guess)? I thought Iraq had many hundreds of thousands of police and army now. Are we surrendering to Al Sadr? Aren't he and his followers, ummm, Iraqis? Or can we not trust Iraqi democracy to pick the "right" people to lead? Or perhaps we're surrendering to the Iranians. The truth is that we've already greatly increased Iranian influence over Iraq with this ongoing clusterfuck. Or are we really just protecting the fragile egos of the neocons who brought us this mess and their keyboard chickenhawk supporters, who insist on "victory" over some shadowiy something they either cannot define, or that doesn't exist in Iraq?
robert powell writes "Perhaps the question would be better phrased, "willing to abandon our allies, our interests, and our honor ..." That horse left the barn 5 years ago and by now the barn itself has burnt down.
According to Robert Powell we're all 'idiots' because we don't know that George Washington fought Saddam at Valley Forge, we fought Saddam again in Korea, and by 2002, the choice was clear: send a zillion troops into Iraq w/o planning or elect Saddam king of the Earth for all eternity. The real thing about Powell I suspect is that (I think) Mark Twain axiom, 'it's hard to convince a man of something when his paycheck depends on his not being convinced of it.' Powell, we get it, you're the one who doesn't get it.
One doesn't have to buy the inflated casualty figures or the exaggerated view of the impact Gitmo and Abu Ghraib have had to recognize that we have done real damage to our interests and our honor in Iraq. It doesn't logically follow that the best policy would be to now simply run away. We went to war in Iraq in 1991 with ample justification, full legal bells and whistles, the international wind at our back, and the near-total support of the American public. The first Bush administration decided that it was too much trouble to actually win, so we have spent the last seventeen years trying to bring this war to an acceptable conclusion. This involved the cumulative deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops and the spending of hundreds of billions of dollars BEFORE 2003, and resulted in the deaths of perhaps a million of the most vulnerable Iraqis due to the embargo we enforced, among a significant number of others including some Americans. Most Iraqis and most Americans, including this one, surely "want us gone". They also want us to leave at a time and in a way that at least nominally secures a reasonable shot at a decent future for Iraq, and the legitimate vital interests of the larger world community in the Persian Gulf region. This is not mission impossible unless we are foolish enough to completely ignore the big picture in favor of narrow partisan politics.
robert powell, We have already given Iraq a "reasonable shot" at any given future. The problem is that we can't force them to take that shot, and generally cannot impose any given future on Iraq. That is why any plausible military mission in Iraq is long over, and Bush was right the first time about "nation building": it just isn't something the American military can do.
"This is not mission impossible..." THAT'S the thing isn't it now? How do we know? Forget the pre-war intelligence Powell, from '03 to '06, we were lied to, lied to CONSTANTLY about the progress on the ground. In fact, by '06, Bush decided to replace everyone of consequence; new ambassador, new general, new Sec Def, more troops, new strategy (get out of the FOBS, deal with all the groups, etc...) I suspect that these changes in fact might have made a real difference, but I don't know, and you know what? I can't know, because I have no reason, zero, zilch, to trust the Bush Admin. on this. Give me one good reason why I should believe Bush when he tells me shit is getting a lot better over there.
DTM--given our role, along with Saddam of course, in bringing Iraq to the brink of total collapse; and given the world's ongoing vital interest in a reasonably stable Persian Gulf region, what we've done so far is not sufficient. I agree that we can't force a decent conclusion with the military, but that doesn't mean we don't still need to play a role. And a part of that role is going to include the military for years to come. mike--forget Bush. Whether he lied or just didn't know what he was talking about is no longer relevant if it ever was. This is going to be a matter for Obama to conclude, and he'll have at least my support for doing it as responsibly as he seems inclined to. If it's believable data you want, the White House has never been and most likely will never be the best source.
robert powell, The problem is that having a moral and practical interest in seeing a particular outcome in Iraq is not the same thing as having the means to impose that outcome on the Iraqi people. And while you assert the American military somehow "needs" to play a role in determining the future path Iraq will choose to take, I don't see any basis for that belief. Indeed, it is pointless to talk about the American military "needing" to do something it is actually incapable of doing. And again, that isn't because they are incapable from a military perspective. Rather, they are being asked to achieve something that isn't military in nature.
DTM-- I don't think that's actually the case. Certainly the US military is not going to be able to govern Iraq going forward, or even determine with any particular specificity how the Iraqi government does so. But that's not what we're being asked to do. The US military is being asked by the freely elected Iraqi government to provide security support of a gradually declining nature while assisting in the development of Iraqi forces to take over that task; and to guarantee Iraq's territorial integrity during the process--essentially, play the role of their air force. This we can, and in my view will, do.
Comments closed June 19, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Damn, only 30 percent of America is Serious!
Posted by Andruw | June 5, 2008 9:28 AM