Democrats and Iraq
Ron Brownstein's take on the latest political action seems appropriately balanced to me. Democrats are, at a minimum, less divided on this than it often seems or is said. What's more, given that it's a legitimately difficult situation you really would expect people to disagree to some extent. The lockstep GOP unity reflects a kind of blinkered brain death more than a steely determination.
I'm continually baffled, however, as to why Democrats don't seem to want to make a bigger deal out of the permanent bases question. That, I would think, is an issue the party could be fairly unified on.
Advertisement
Fair enough but for me the big story is John Kerry. I supported him in 2004 because he promised to be a moderate and strong on national security. Now, a mere 18 months later he is advocating a quick withdrawal and panders to the hard left. I agree with the Levin plan but I feel betrayed by Kerry. It pains me to say it, but on this evidence, I think I was wrong to support him. Bush is bad but I now prefer to have him there than Kerry. Before everyone piles on can I ask commenters to address the question of whether the John Kerry on display now is notably more left wing than the John Kerry of 2004. If so, was this not falseness in advertising?
June 24, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair to Kerry, he *was* winking and nudging about Iraq in the 2004 campaign. His supporters were pretty sure that he intended to cut and run starting January 20, 2005.
June 24, 2006 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I supposed John Murtha is also part of this vast, hard left of which you speak?
I think "left wing" is the wrong way to describe Kerry, or anyone on this issue. I think the real distinction is being realistic about how (or whether...) we're the cause of the insurgency, or at least the lightning rod for it.
I'm not a big Kerry defender or supporter. But, Kerry during the campaign wanted an bigger coalition and international support, among other things. And there's at least a chance he could have been able to take the defeat of Bush as an opportunity to bring a new approach to the table.
Today, since Iraq has gone from bad to worse, Kerry, like Murtha and others, sees our presence hurting the effort more than helping. Certainly there's a valid argument to be had, and it has nothing to do with "left" or "right."
So I don't think you can just compare Campaigning Kerry with today's, and simply conclude he's more "left wing."
And, truly, I don't see how you could say Bush is better than Kerry -- or even anyone -- right now. I'd bet almost anyone else in office right now would have the good sense to come up with a Plan B, something the Bush White House has refused to do. (Of course, implying that there is no plan to leave until he's out of office anyway.)
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
June 24, 2006 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Murtha's righteous anger is refreshing, but it's no more a plan than the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld "stay the course" is.
Redeploying ground forces "over the horizon" would have the effect of turning the Iraq War into a real and pure "air-War Crime."
June 24, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a great line in the movie, Amistad, where John Quincy Adams observes, "The lawyer with the better story wins the case." or words to that effect, and advises that the abolishnists trying to defend the Amistad's cargo from enslavement, find out their story.
The Democrats seem to think they need "a plan", when what they need is a better story, a narrative with a convincing analytic kernal. The Republicans have a narrative: "if the U.S. can persist, resolute and determined, freedom and democracy will prevail; if the Democrats cut and run, all honor and advantage will be lost and wasted."
Bush does not have a plan, as the Democrats in Congress have pointed out, to no avail, and the Democrats have two or more plans, but no story.
The Democrats need a story, first, which explains what Bush is doing in Iraq, and, a second story, which makes withdrawal look like a good option.
One foundation for a good Democratic narrative is the insight that the Iraqis do not want us in Iraq.
Americans are not going to be concerned about permanent bases, by themselves. Connect permanent bases with the fact that Iraqis basically don't want us there, and ask, how do you persuade a hostile people to accept permanent bases? Can American honorably persuade the Iraqis to accept a permanent American presence?
I think the answer is clear: Bush is operating a variation on a protection racket. As long as the Iraqi government is very, very weak, it will not ask the U.S. to leave, and Bush has done everything he can to weaken the Iraqi government: destroyed and then failed to rebuild electric and water utilities; disbanded and then failed to adequately train and equip an Iraqi Army and police force; failed to restore Iraqi oil production.
The benefits to Bush, his family, his family's clients and his "base" have been considerable, in corruption and high oil prices.
The cost to the U.S. in honor, treasure and lives has been considerable; the damage to the American strategic interest in deterring nuclear proliferation and eventual Iranian domination of the Gulf are also considerable.
That is a very distressing story, a narrative that weaves together a number of facts about a corrupt Bush administration in a way that makes a mockery of pretensions of resolute promotion of democracy.
It also suggests an honorable way out: if Iraq's government is strong enough, they will certainly ask us to leave. If they actually did stand up, the U.S. would get its walking papers.
Democrats, from the minority perch would be well advised to offer two plans, to reinforce that narrative: one for now, and one for later. Offer to support additional expenditures, to strengthen Iraq -- these should be specific things, to highlight what Bush has been deliberately not doing, in order to keep Iraq weak. In other words, "put up or shut up". Plan B should be what the Democrats would do Jan 21, 2009, assuming Bush has continued the course -- an immediate, staged withdrawal, with support for international efforts to salvage what can be salvaged.
But, the plan has to be servant to the story, and the story has to reveal what a sorry, corrupt bastard Bush is.
June 24, 2006 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wouldn't vote for Kerry again? Well I won't vote for Clinton or the others who will keep American soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying so they can position themselves to out chickenhawk the opposition chickenhawks.
Yeah, we're really united.
June 24, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
a mere 18 months later
I remember back when 18 months was considered an exaggerated estimate of how long the whole war would last. How times have changed...
June 24, 2006 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this ridiculous idea that no one can ever change their position based on facts on the ground is emblematic of the Bush/GOP position on Iraq. They've had the same plan for Iraq since the start: do nothing except mouth empty platitudes (stand up, stand down), attack your opponents, and pray that it all works out.
The fundamental disagreement is that you still apparently believe that something can somehow be gained in Iraq by keeping our troops there indefinitely, while many of us disagree, based on the cumulative effect of the last few years of following the "policy" staying-the-course.
I think many, probably even most according to the polls, Dems were for that policy for some period of time, until a point was reached, eventually, over time, where it began to be clear that it was leading nowhere. Take a look at Matt's articles in TAP to see the accumulation of this evidence over time. At some point, those polls show most Dems changed their minds, as reasonable people do when faced with contrary facts.
Now that we have the Iraqi Prime Minister and the U.S. General in charge of the operation on our side in favor of a gradual withdrawal, at least in part in order to prevent the occupation from further inflaming the country, perhaps you may want to rethink your position.
I think the differences between Kerry and the rest of the Senate Dems come down to those who have taken the evidence about what is happening in Iraq to the logical conclusions (among them that our staying forever is not going to make things better and that the crew in charge are never going to do things right) and are willing to stand up and be counted based on these logical conclusions (Kerry, Feingold, et al) and those who believe the same thing but don't want to think it through because they are scared for perceived political reasons (Hillary and co.).
Rove thinks strong and wrong is better than weak and right, and the Dems are often happy to go along for the ride, although not in the way he means it. They have to be strong (and preferably united) in presenting the case for their correctness.
I bet those of you who have actually listened to Feingold and Kerry have found them a lot more convincing and compelling than Clinton (but give her credit for actually speaking about her views on Iraq recently, as opposed to the many Dems who seem to be in hibernation for fear of being quoted on the record taking a stand one way or the other).
June 26, 2006 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink