Look, I am strongly opposed to all forms of illiberal psychosis.
And I never liked Reagan jingoism.
But I am not sure I know what you mean by saying that you would "like to see us stay in Iraq until the Army's reputation is what is should be in a non-militaristic democracy."  
What aspect of the Army's reputation would you like to see changed?
Prior to this war, it had a reputation for efficiency, professionalism, discipline, decency, and fairness.  It had a reputation for being able to beat any foe, and treat every defeated enemy fairly.
Because of the Bush regime's actions, the Army's reputation has taken a number of hits--it now looks weaker than it is, and--what is worse--it has been sullied by the immoral abuse and torture policies that were promulgated by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.  
Those abuses have violated the best traditions of the Army, and it has been the Army itself--its officers and JAG corps--that have worked hardest to maintain its traditions against the corruptions of the Bush regime.
I would like to see the Army restored to the shining reputation it had before it fell under the command of a group of monstrous immoral chickenhawks.
I hope that's what you want, too.

Yeah, yeah, too true, for once I can't find any bones to pick with Chait.  And your addendum is true as well.  Yadda, yadda, ho hum . . . but what an excellent Clash reference conclusion! Reminds me of your old eponymous blog.  If I could, I'd rate your post a 9.5 (even though you nailed the dismount, there's an automatic .5 point deduction based on low degree of difficulty).

I believe that liberals loathe the war because they loathe Bush, rather than vice versa. What they want above all is for Bush to admit he made some huge mistakes in Iraq

Couldn't read past this little tidbit. Can we please stop with the "it's personal against Bush" crap?

As if someone else lied us into war, we'd like it? As if someone else refused to change course, we'd like it? As if someone else decided the Geneva Conventions were "quaint," we'd like it?

I cannot speak for the broad brush group "liberals" (who Chait seems to have no problem speaking for...), but I could give a rat's ass if Bush admitted a mistake.

I'd much much rather have Bush DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

At almost 2100 deaths in Iraq, I'd say we're way beyond the point of caring if Bush admitted a mistake.

That was, like, so 2004 Campaign.

The sad thing is that there is, or was, a prospect to get Democrats onboard with the war effort. I believe that liberals loathe the war because they loathe Bush, rather than vice versa. What they want above all is for Bush to admit he made some huge mistakes in Iraq. It's not a big thing to admit; everybody knows it's true.

I believe liberals loathe the war because it was an ill-advised war in the first place.  We all know this. Even Matt knows this, so I don't see where he gets off calling this paragraph "pretty sound."

If Chait expects me, a liberal who actually believed (and still does) in the power of democracy and was once a supporter of the war based on those beliefs, to come around if Bush simply apologizes, he is freaking crazy. I was duped. I bought the idea that Iraq's people weren't all that conflicted in that it would be an excellent starting point for Arab and Muslim democracy in the Middle East. I was wrong, and I was so because they lied to me. They misrepresented just about everything. Rumsfeld: "Its hard to believe..hard to imagine...needing hundreds for thousands of troops..."

And yes, I apologize for my positions prior to 2003. (I changed just before on suspicion that these guys didn't know what they were doing.) But I'm not in a position of making decisions that cost countless lives, decisions that turned out to be reckless.

At this point, I have very little interest in flag waving for the sake of flag waving. If the Democrat politicians that I think to represent me don't feel the way I do, well, then I guess I have to do some soul searching. But if they do, I have a hard time believing they would be holding back support to finish the conflict out of a hatred of Bush, holding on to some secret plan to make things better over there. The lack of plan, which even the Bush Administration doesn't seem to have, is attributed to 1 of 2 things. 1.) Ignorance, stupidity and stubborness. or 2.) The situation is so untenable that there is no fucking plan.

Ugh, I rarely get this upset. I don't know what got into me.

And I haven't seen any convincing argument that the trends are good.




One of the reasons why liberals and conservatives often seem like they are on different planets is that are using completely different measures of success in thinking about Iraq. If you consider the ongoing ability of insurgent terrorists to kill and maim Americans the only measure of success or failure, then sure, the war looks like it's going pretty badly. But defenders of the war, even those who are approaching the debate in good faith (there are some) don't look at it that way. They are looking at things like repaired infrastructure, economic activity, oil exports, the resumption of cultural activity, a free-ish press etc. War supporters simply do not take the violence as the only measure of success or failure.




So when we talk about "trend lines", it really depends on what trend lines you're talking about. Iraq is moving towards parliamentary elections, the economy continues to revive etc. In no way do I wish to imply that these are the only measures we should use in looking at the situation. It's just that there is more to the picture than the daily litany of suicide bombers and IEDs. It is this progress that would be seriously jeopardized if we were to withdraw and the country were to descend into full-blown civil war. And please don't say "but there is a civil war already." No there isn't. It can get a LOT worse.




I'm with Marshall Wittman, who writes:

[We are] united in the belief that America can only leave when Iraq is relatively stable and a government is in place that can defend itself against the terrorist forces. Some favor more troops, at least temporarily. Others believe that current levels are adequate. Most of all, [we] seek a bi-partisan national unity that rejects the increasingly bitter polarization over the war. This is not the time to suggest that the President lied or that patriotic critics of the war are treasonous. To paraphrase Congressman Rahm Emanuel, the debate should not be over how we got in but rather how we get out leaving behind a stabilized Iraq.

I believe that liberals loathe the war because they loathe Bush, rather than vice versa. What they want above all is for Bush to admit he made some huge mistakes in Iraq

I would have to agree with cscs that this is utter nonsense.  That statement stopped me dead.  I have talked to many who oppose the war and none of them disagreed with the war because they loathed Bush.  True they may loathe Bush, but they loathed the war because there was no rationale for invading Iraq.  I don't really care if Bush admits he is wrong or not.  I just want out of the debacle as soon as possible.  Rep. Murtha's plan is good enough for me.  

Chait can believe whatever he wants, but he is dead wrong about me and many others I know who oppose the war.

Prior to this war, it had a reputation for efficiency, professionalism, discipline, decency, and fairness.  Tad Brennan

And only in war do you learn whether the reputation is deserved or hype.

N.B.  Let's not forget pre-war USS Iowa gay sailor frame-up, sexual harrassment, Tailhook, Okinawa rapes, Air Force Academy fundies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

So when we talk about "trend lines", it really depends on what trend lines you're talking about. Iraq is moving towards parliamentary elections, the economy continues to revive etc.

Brad, how do you think Iraq looks according to the other trend lines, looking beyond the violence?  The electricity is worse than under Saddam; less oil is flowing.  What is the progress in the economy?  Will the electoral process give Iraq a fundamentalist Islamic state?  If so, is that good?  I am not being snarky; I'm asking serious questions.

If President Clinton or President Gore had invaded Iraq just at the moment when int'l inspectors were about to certify the country as WMD-free, I can say without hesitation that I would be just as adamantly opposed. But there's simply no reason to believe it would have gone down that way if either Dem had been President.

" That case is that Iraq is in danger of becoming a failed state and terrorist haven, like Afghanistan." I get the impression from what I read that Iraq is currently a terrorist haven. I don't see any way that 130,000 American troops could prevent that. I can't tell whether this quote means to imply that Afganistan is currently a terrorist haven or just that it was in the past. Is there any evidence that Afganistan is not a terrorist haven also?

The electricity is worse than under Saddam; less oil is flowing. What is the progress in the economy? Will the electoral process give Iraq a fundamentalist Islamic state? If so, is that good?




I believe progress is being made, especially on the political and economic fronts (levels of electricity production are not a good measure, given the depth of destruction and neglect over the last few years, as well as ongoing sabotage), despite all manner of incompetence and bad decision making. The basic question for me, as for Andrew Sullivan is,




It's not intellectually easy to continue supporting a war when you've lost faith in the honesty and competence of the president who's leading it, but what choice do we have? There are other good people struggling to make this work: Casey, Rice, Khalilzad, McCain; and the thousands of troops who are risking their lives in this project. They key is to grasp how little we know, how badly we've screwed up, but also not to throw in the towel when, in fact, there is still a chance for leveraging the current situation to our and to Iraqis' advantage.




I don't want to come off like a Pollyanna. But I also believe that withdrawal now is immoral.

Biden sorta kinda gits it.


Biden will be spared.

Biden Backs a More Gradual Iraq Pullout
By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer 23 minutes ago

The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Monday that he shares the frustration of those who support an immediate pullout from Iraq but he is "not there yet" and believes there should be a phased withdrawal.

"I still believe we can preserve our fundamental security interests in Iraq as we begin to redeploy our forces," Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware told the Council on Foreign Relations. "That will require the administration not to stay the course, but to change course, and to do it now."

Biden referred to "respected voices on military matters" like Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Democrat, who called for a troop pullout on Thursday. But Biden said he does not support bringing the troops home now. Rather, he said, 50,000 U.S. troops should leave Iraq by the end of 2006 and "a significant number" of the remaining 100,000 should leave in 2007.

It's actually liberal hawks who supported this war not because there was proof of an Al-Qaida connection or that Saddam was about to get nuclear weapons, but because it allowed them to feel tougher, more hard-headed, and in every way superior to the peaceniks in the Democratic base whom folks like Chait believe to be unsophisticated rubes who have no appreciation for the complexity of foreign policy and the need to use force.

Chait knows this, so he assumes that those who were anti-war took their position for the same sorts of cynical reasons that he took his.

A simple "you were right and I was wrong" would be a lot more honest.

I believe progress is being made,

Specifically what progress?  You really didn't answer any of my questions.

Gen. Casey has submitted plans for drawing down the numbers of troops.  The troops are doing their duty as they are told to do, but the Army and Army Reserves and Army National Guard are being broken by this war.

If you want to persuade me to your way of thinking, it's best not to use a quote from Andrew Sullivan.  I don't think there is any way - at this point - for us to bring about anything that resembles a good outcome in Iraq.

BradTheDad writes:

Marshall Wittman's point is that there is no unity whatsoever on where we go from here.

And the reason is that the Bush Administration fucked up so completely with the invasion and occupation of Iraq that it is not at all obvious where we go from here.  The reason why we need to consider the "depredations of the Administration before the war" is because the strategic failure was so massive it would be remiss of us to ignore it when planning any recovery.

Frankly, anyone that thinks we can continue the current non-strategy of pretending that everything is fine and dandy cares neither for the Iraqi nor the American people.  What is the best strategy in Iraq?  I do not know.  But I do know that all good strategies start with the dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.  He bears the major responsibility for our failure there and must be held accountable.  He has clearly demonstrated himself to be incapable of developing an exit plan that minimizes the carnage in Iraq while allowing the United States to retain even the tiniest vestige of honor.

his ass not your ass... sorry... :)

[We are] united in the belief that America can only leave when Iraq is relatively stable and a government is in place that can defend itself against the terrorist forces. Some favor more troops, at least temporarily. Others believe that current levels are adequate. Most of all, [we] seek a bi-partisan national unity that rejects the increasingly bitter polarization over the war. This is not the time to suggest that the President lied or that patriotic critics of the war are treasonous. To paraphrase Congressman Rahm Emanuel, the debate should not be over how we got in but rather how we get out leaving behind a stabilized Iraq.

Fine, you stand with this clownish fantasy.  I'll stand with the people I care about who simply want to come home from Iraq.  It's not there fault that morons dreams up this foolish war, and they should not be expected to pay for the sins of assholes and morons. 

wrong, BradtheDad, the bitter polarization that we see on this matter is a direct outcome of the dishonest way the bush administration took us to war and the failure of that administration to prepare the american public for anything other than a cakewalk. now we're stuck with a damned if you do (withdraw) damned if you don't (withdraw). that has a tendency to make people bitter.

and the reason we have to keep discussing the run-up to the war is that there are no goals for this war, so we keep trying to figure out what the purpose was, and why the administration was so gung-ho to fight it that it provided a dishonest rationale.

when you can define "winning" or at least "stabilization" in a way that makes sense, we can discuss whether there is a way to meet that definition, but the best-case scenario i can see (a reasonably non-sectarian multi-ethnic government that at least isn't exporting terror) seems like a pipe dream hardly worth more sacrifice of american blood and treasure. don't go blaming the dems for getting us in this mess: this is a bush production, through and through.