How's your romance?
How's your romance?
How is it going?
Waning or growing,
How's your romance?
-- Cole Porter, Gay Divorce, 1932
Do we need more Democrats in Congress? A veto-proof majority? That's one interpretation of their failure to end the war. We also hear that the ones who are there have no guts. Or they have been bought by corporate interests.
Let's burn down a few straw men.
The lack of a veto-proof majority is irrelevant. Congress appropriates funds. No funds, no policy. It takes affirmative action to continue a war. Congress has stood up to be counted, and they have said let's have some more war. Veto-proof majorities are very rare. If that's what you're looking forward to, you had better be prepared for a long wait.
The Senate and Joe Lieberman are not the issue. The Dems have a solid majority in the House, and they have rolled over. Why would it be any different if we have two or three more Ben Nelsons in the Senate? It is not clear that more Dems would be much help in this particular context. I suspect there's a principle of diminishing returns that operates here. Each additional Dem would be from a more marginal district, less likely to oppose the White House.
On a matter with none of the risk of an anti-war vote, namely the budget, the Dems betray the same suckfulness, committing little to new domestic initiatives and buying into fool nostrums about balancing the budget (with magical revenue projections to boot).
Are Democratic politicians inclined to be risk-averse and susceptible to corporate gifts? Aren't all politicians? That goes with the territory. The unfortunate possibility is that office-holders and their voters just don't think bugging out of Iraq is right. Even if a majority do, that's not enough, because the Democrats are not much of an opposition party and the U.S. is not quite a republic.
So where does that leave us? One jaundiced remark from a commenter asked if I would have activists expounding theories of imperialism, the better to rouse an opiated electorate. It was a good question, since I've been saying Democrats, activists, and netrooters have been too pragmatic and anti-intellectual, and not radical enough.
Of course intellectual discourse aimed at the general population on an issue arousing intense feeling would be instantly tuned out as bloviation. The question then, is what sort of popular politics would arouse the public to change electoral and legislative outcomes? I don't know for sure, but I can offer a few possibilities.
We could start with some beliefs that are already rooted in public opinion. One is that the U.S. has no responsibility for liberating others, or to be meddling in their business. This caters to selfish impulses, but it has the constructive implication of dialing down violent U.S. interventionism fueled by the pretense of idealism.
Another is the healthy, well-founded suspicion of crass interests at the heart of policies purporting to be in the U.S. national interest. Weapons manufacturers, contractors, Defense Department bureaucrats, radio talk show hosts, pundits, and bloggers tragically denied an opportunity to serve in the military.
Another one is the Zionist lobby. This is a touchy one. I'd like to put across the idea that their most important feature is not connections to Israel, or Jewish descent, but that they are 'effin nuts. Their solution to every Mideast problem is to dig the U.S. (and Israel) in deeper -- making the world a Palestine. Making this sort of distinction may be too difficult to avoid counter-charges of anti-semitism, as well as stoking actual anti-semitism.
A more wholesome analysis would subsume the Zionist factor under the long-standing tradition of malign U.S. interventionism, founded on the idea of the U.S. as a world leader that must maintain global military dominace. "Cops of the world" was once a popular incantation. The mainstream Democratic alternative, on full display here at TPM Cafe, is cops-with-social-work-degrees of the world.
The rhetoric of Democratic candidates for president is exemplary: the road to imperialist, interventionist hell is paved with internationalist idealism. That's always how it works.
Events have shown we cannot be cops of the world. We can certainly shoot the place up, but we cannot construct civil order to our liking anywhere we choose. Moreover, the record exhibits a long history of violent interventions with little justification or pay-off.
Iraq also shows that the "fight them over there, not over here" theme is exactly backwards. We should much rather fight them over here. After all, not many of them would even be interested in coming here in the first place, especially if we weren't in Iraq. Fewer would actually make it. Nor would any be very well supplied or supported. By contrast, over there they are running amuck, often at the expense of U.S. service people. Isn't choosing the right battlefield an essential military skill? If a truckload of AQs came across the Mexican border, how long do you think they would last? Why haven't they come already? Obviously G. Bush has given them easy pickings close to home.
Our Democratic international relations specialists are working overtime to help the Democratic Party gain respectability in national security, to overcome the Vietnam syndrome and the fatal judgment of being "weak on defense." This notion needs to be turned entirely inside-out.
Who is really weak on defense? How 'bout the interventionists (Republican and Democrat), who are trigger-happy and can't shoot straight? Who screwed up by a) letting Saddam massacre the marsh Arabs; b) invading Afghanistan but failing to catch Osama and failing to provide enough resources to bring order?; c) invading Iraq a second time?; d) who now are falling over themselves to justify attacking Iran, in the G.O.P. case with nukes? This is strong on defense? What a joke.
From the standpoint of the national interest, the Democrats don't need to prove they can be as reckless as the Bushists. We saw how seriously the public takes military credentials, by electing George aWol Bush and supporting a 'war cabinet' of draft-dodgers, by mocking the military service of a genuine, decorated veteran.
What we need is a public deeply skeptical of interventionism. Threats justifying the use of force tend to be grossly exaggerated, when not entirely constructed of whole cloth. Powerful interests have a stake in inflating such threats. And the elements of effective protection do not require our immense military establishment, nor its projection of mass violence. It has always been this way.
We need more of what is described as unreflexive 'knee-jerk' pacifism that assumes interventionists are more likely to be a force for evil and stupidity, rather than for good. It's justified by the history, and by current events. It's funny that nobody calls the Pope unreflexive for considering that maybe Jesus did not rise from the dead. Either a fixed position or a flexible one could be well-founded or not.
The only voices that grasp this basic truth right now are Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have a realistic chance to be president, so they are consumed with the need to convince elites that they will carry on the blood-soaked tradition in U.S. foreign policy.
For the time being as far as national electoral politics is concerned, the peace-makers are the ones who deserve elevation, for the sake of public enlightenment. Grass roots anti-war action should be channeled to primary campaigns in the same vein. There will still be plenty of time to vote for somebody you don't like.
The perversity of the habit among some netroots to slime Kucinich should now be clear. Pragmatic considerations compel some self-styled progressives to attack those proposing the politically untenable and defend Democratic gains in Congress. Problem is, the Congressional Democrats believe that ending the war by denying it funds is politically untenable. So the anti-war netroots are gagging on their own tail.
Here's a wildly impractical, radical ultra-communist thought: do the right thing and get out of Iraq, and trust the people to duly reward you at the polls.
(See also David Sirota.)
I vote for Max! A refreshingly honest and astute commentary indeed.
And, yes, Max skepticism about interventionism is indeed a core American value and one that will resonate with all Americans. George Washington set the tone all the way back in 1796:
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all...
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated . . .
Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity . . .
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible . . .
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world . . .Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences . .
June 10, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Max Sawicky I've always been a big fan of. Thanks especially for pointing out that the "fight them over there, not over here" theme has it exactly backwards.
Re: the Zionist Lobby...do you think they could be stripped of their influence if the peace lobby in America were to start strongly recommending that the US and Israel follow a new approach to negotiating with the Palestinians: Extreme Generosity?
June 10, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for saying it straight. Glenn Greenwald has made a similar analysis of the matter today.
I've had some time to think about the hardcore Zionist lobby lately. The more I've looked, the more the ensemble of evidence reminds me of the symptomology and phenomena of unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia. There are lengthy periods of calm that suggest rationality and successful adaption, but they never last.
We have a government of right wingers and reactionaries. When stripped down to barest bones, those points of view are about willingness to crush their opponents violently and engage in killing of those who would have the order of things, especially power, be greatly different.
Our national argument at the moment is imho largely about whether we have had enough of crushing and killing, and enough of the people who define their job as enabling crushing and killing. That includes the media who whitewash the enterprise.
June 10, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the US must start withdrawing from Iraq, but you've put your finger on the reason the Democrats can't make it happen right now, "It is not clear that more Dems would be much help in this particular context. I suspect there's a principle of diminishing returns that operates here. Each additional Dem would be from a more marginal district, less likely to oppose the White House."
Quite a few Democrats were elected or re-elected to represent marginal districts in the last election and they want to stay in the House. Call them DINOs if you like, but the reality is that there isn't an inexhaustible number of liberal - guaranteed Democratic - districts.
It is possible that Bush and the Democrats reached a private agreement last month. Bush got funding for the war and in return he promised to withdraw troops in September if the Iraqi Government does not fulfill promises. If Bush is looking at his place in history, at this point in time his legacy is in the manure pile.
"fight them over there, not over here" - Bush and the Republicans are very good at the one line sound bites and the media lets them play every time without questioning them. The Democrats need to develop retorts and messages that fit into sound bites and then use them consistently. Why waste troops and money "over there" - we don't even know who we are fighting.
June 10, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"effin' nuts"
Good description.
June 10, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, brother. I would add that convincing Dem leaders that it is not just a reputation of weak on defense they need to fight but one of being weak period. With a lame duck, historically low-rated and despised president, Dems appear to roll over time and again.
I suspect that Dem leaders decided before the mid terms that they would not go to the wall to end the war and would, thus, benefit in ‘08. After all, they helped the WH frame defunding as abandoning troops in the field. They also took impeachment off the table before taking over Congress. This effectively meant no real in-depth investigations into the blatant crimes and misdemeanors committed by the WH.
Frankly, the Dems are failing in their constitutional responsibility as a check on a tyrannical executive as much as the Republican Congress was. I think the general public can understand that and bring pressure to change this strategy.
June 10, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm not as willing to let "we the people" off the hook so easily. The vast majority of the people have supported foreign interventions since the Monroe Doctrine. We only start considering the morality of such actions when we are losing.
Perhaps the population is lied to when we are planning a new war, but if we didn't implicitly support a muscular foreign policy we wouldn't have the infrastructure ready to go for such occasions.
We are 4% of the world population and consume 40% of the "stuff". Do you think all those other places just supply us in arrangements that are lopsided in our favor because they want to?
Gunboat diplomacy isn't anything new. The US population is so selfish we can't even contemplate giving up SUV's. As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
It's nice blaming bad policies on politicians, but we elect them.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 10, 2007 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of the people have supported foreign interventions . . . Perhaps the population is lied to . . . .
Well; if the majority supports "foreign interventions" why is it that the government and its foreign policy elites believe that they must lie to that majority in order to get their way?
What do you know about the views of the American people that the elites, apparently, don't?
June 10, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to add one thing to Max's excellent analysis, which I suspect Max would agree with: noninterventionism is emphatically not isolationism (though I am sure the interventionists will try to attack it as such). While avoiding interventions in internal politics of other countries, America should engage with the world, seeking (as Washington put it) "harmony" and "liberal intercourse" with all nations on an impartial basis.
We would do well to view all nations as equal friends if they meet just three simple criteria:
Even nations that do not meet these criteria should not be viewed as enemies, unless they attack us or commit crimes against human rights too egregious to ignore. Instead, they should be seen as potential friends and any openings for greater "harmony" and "liberal intercourse" should be welcomed.
Our use of military might should be limited. If attacked, we must defend ourselves. We may also aid in the defense of an ally who is unjustly attacked. The only other time we should go to war is to protect a group that is the victim of a crime against humanity and only if that group would welcome our help, we are capable of helping effectively, and our own people are fully committed to helping. We should avoid all other wars or interventions.
Finally, we should significantly reduce our military presence around the world--preserving only the minimum number of bases needed for defensive purposes. We should not participate in coups or covert actions designed to alter the governments of foreign countries, and our intelligence activities should be limited to the bare minimum necessary to ensure we can anticipate impending threats.
Simply put, we should seek peaceful commerce with all nations but assiduously avoid any involvement in the conflicts that occur between nations or within nations.
June 10, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put. Now, as per Joe Lieberman, on to Iran! I guess I’m wondering how we can get the Dem party to lead us out of our imperial crusades.
Dems pulled the attachment to the supplemental that required Congressional assent for attacking Iran after some slight threats from AIPAC. (As an aside, I know AIPAC is an American lobby group but this seems close to an agents of a foreign government interfering in foreign policy thing).
The opposition party cannot even insist on what is their constitutional mandate. Dems are forever waiting for the Republicans to self destruct. Problem is, by the time they do, Dems are seen as gutless collaborators by default.
June 10, 2007 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: They also took impeachment off the table before taking over Congress.
With just 51 Democratic senators impeachement was never even close to being on the table.
June 11, 2007 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most people in the USA labor under the delusion that we have two mainstream political parties; the Democrats and Republicans.
Nothing could be further from the truth. America has only ONE party and that is the "CORPORATE WAR PARTY" with two wings; the Dems and Repubs.
NO matter who gets elected--or crowned by the Supreme Court--in November of 2008, we will be at war and stay at war in Iraq. If Hillary gets in the office of the president, look out. She'll have to prove her cojones are as big as any other man and will bomb/invade Iran. That is, if we haven't already nuked Persia back to the Stone Age.
The cold, hard truth is that we lost our democratic republic sometime between JFK's murder in 1963 and the 1967 "surge" in the Vietnam war.
We have become a nation of fat, indolent and apathetic war criminals, cheering on our never ending succession of Imperial wars like cheerleaders at a football game.
But, hey, relax, kick back, enjoy a "brewski" and some more chips while you're thoroughly engaged in watching on the "Boob Tube" the latest sordid details about Paris Hilton.
June 11, 2007 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think they believe this for the same reason we all believe that we need to tell parents of ugly babies that their children are just the most beautiful things we've ever seen. There's a propensity to exaggerate our virtues and denigrate our faults that lies deep in the cultural psyche, and perhaps equally in the individual psyche as well. The elites, perhaps more cynical than the rest (they learned something on their way to becoming elite) know this and capitalize on it.
The problem is that the elite forget that the same propensity lies within themselves, and they wind up captured by the vision of their own lies: hubris, the grand disease of the powerful.
A long time ago, I read an article the essence of which was this: if the number of persons who claimed they voted against Nixon actually had voted against Nixon, McGovern would have won in a landslide.
So maybe we need to work on teaching ourselves to beware of flatterers, and when we, the body politic, are told how intelligent we are or how grand our culture is, learn to check for hands picking out pockets.
aMike
June 11, 2007 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Max Sawicky,
Maybe we could learn enough to realize and understand that there really is no monolithic "Zionist lobby." There is in fact a full spectrum from AIPAC and AZM on the right to UPZ, APN and IPF on the left -- where right represents dominant faith based nonsense, and left represents the fabled reality based community. Then again, maybe Zionism really isn't everybody's thing. Fair enough. Either way, it could work wonders for a sane foreign policy to draw forth the legitimacy of the leftish (secular, liberal, humanistic) Zionists instead of smearing the entire movement with a broad populist brushful of stale demonizing bromides about jackbooted genocidal imperial colonialists. Of course, that would mean sacrificing the fun and games of claiming stifled debates over charges of antisemitism. We will always choose our priorties.
June 11, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
and then, inevitably, darfur?
wither darfur?
June 11, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing is true: the anti-war netroots are gagging on their own tail. and to make the point, i will draw some attention to what this analysis fails to do: it fails to bring itself up to date with the addition of jim webb to the senate, a senator who has a son in iraq, a senator who was against the war in 2002, but has not signed on to the netroots approved way of ending the war.
so the if/thens of last year no longer apply. you are either for this, or you are for more war. you do it my way, or you are for more war. i can see no other way, so if you won't do it, it's clear to me that you have -- knowingly -- chosen a path that will lead to more war.
i turn on c-span and hear republicans -- smirks etched on their faces -- "if you're serious about ending the war, why then you must be for cutting off funds."
i turn off c-span and turn on the progressive blogs and hear the exact same thing. of course, in earnest.
so. yes. there are fissures in the anti-war netroots, and false choices are being revealed to themselves. there will be those who will feel inclined to continue to support netroots success stories like webb and tester (and those people will have to consider that a decision not to support a certain way to end the war does not equate to a decision to have more war), and others who will choose not to do so.
i should add, much of the sliming of kucinich from the left comes from people who genuinely believe that if his is the face of the anti-war movement, then the anti-war movement will be marginalized.
it's not his position on the issue. it's the other baggage that comes with him. and, yes, that haircut is part of it. even if i bought the rhetoric of the anti-war netroots movement, i still wouldn't want kucinich being front and center on that movement.
June 11, 2007 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard an excerpt of Lieberman's comments -- saying that we needed to take military action against Iran in order to stop the Iranians from killing our soldiers in Iraq. Of course, I wondered why taking our soldiers out of Iraq wouldn't accomplish the same goal.
June 11, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
To hear Lieberman tell it, we're already at war with Iran. He wants to hit their camps where they are training and arming someone(?) to attack U.S. soldiers. Pace had denied that there was evudence that Iran (at the top levels) was even providing the specialized IEDs as was being claimed before, which may be why he is out.
June 11, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference. NYTimes11/09/2006
The House brings impeachment which the Senate tries. I have no doubt that impeachment would go forward if Pelosi sanctioned it. Yes, it would put senators in a position of having to do the right thing, as it should, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Impeachment is not about seeing Bush or Cheney personally labeled as the crooks they are or to revenge the Clinton farce or to taint the Republicans. They don’t need any help with that. But this administration has committed power-grabbing criminal acts for six years that have to be exposed and struck down with extreme prejudice if we want to stop this slow slide into autocracy.
Revelations of outrageous behavior leak out all the time. Recently, there is the story of Gonzales and Card rushing to the hospital to get a medicated Ashcroft to sign off on illegal spying or the apparent story that we “disappeared” at least two kids under ten to use as pawns to get there father to talk and who are still held in secret somewhere (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's kids who were tortured by the Pakistanis trying to locate Khalid before being turned over to us).
Our great American all-men-are-created-equal, innocent-until-proven-guilty democratic government that is a light to the world has been run like a tin-pot dictatorship and unless we admit and correct this we will never regain our reputation and balance.
June 11, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
For four years, Republicans, with smirks on their faces, have all but said that if you want to end the war, you are a traitor. Dems have run from this because they thought that the public--remember their constituents, the people they represent-- believed that bullshit. Then they were elected to leadership on overwhelming support for ending the war. They should not even be listening to what smirking Republicans are saying. They boxed themselves into a corner (purposefully?) by repeating the myth that denying funds for war was treason. I think it is the Dems in Congress who are gagging on their own tale (sic).
June 11, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is not that dems should listen to smirking republicans.
my point is that much of the progressive blogosphere agrees with smirking republicans on the conclusion being made: that failing to support ending the war by cutting off funds means you are for more war.
if anything i am saying they should not listen to anyone at all who says crap like this: "if you want to end the war, then you must cut off funds, and if you don't cut off funds, then you are for more war."
June 11, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
A majority of the voters stated they had a desire to end the Iraq War and voted accordingly. (This majority is presumptively made up the the Left plus the middle.) It is strongly argued that the politicians should do what a majority of the population wants.
It is then learned that a majority (presumptivewly made up of a different combination of people -- right plus middle)do not want the troops defunded.
So the Left is now arguing that 'the majority' is betrayed if the troops are not defunded.
I do not believe that this argument can hold. If you respect the 'majority' desire to end the Iraq war do you not also have to respect the ' majority' qualms about the means?
This is what the Democrats have done -- in part because as with Sen. Levin who had good early anti-Iraq War credentials they too fear that defunding could harm the troops and in part because they have to retain the middle or the Publican Party wins the next election and we lose our democracy.
A much more difficult but more important effort rather than demonizing the Democrats (it is always so much easier to be angry at an ally who disappoints you than to be outraged against the true enemy from whom you expect nothing) would be to convince the middle that defunding the troops to bring them home is far more supportive than leaving them in Iraq.
As an aside, I have always found it mind boggling that voters can feel that Bush who sent soldiers to Iraq without adequate body armor and Humvee shielding could be seen as supporting the troops in any way shape or form. There was an old leftist bumper sticker along the lines of wouldn't it be great if education were fully funded and the Pentagon had to hold bake sales but soldier's families holding bake sales so that the troops have armor was not what we meant!
June 11, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything about Bush believers boggles the mind. I think half the country was hypnotized by 9/11. It has been wearing off in the last two years. You make a good argument explaining the Dems' punting on Iraq but I don't buy the underlying premise that defunding is endangering the troops.
First, let me point out that we are having a hypothetical political discussion. I think it is hypothetical because the Dems are not going to end the war ASAP as they campaigned on doing. Their pointless non-binding resolutions or pre-vetoed bills or benchmarks which were put forward by Bush months earlier indicate their strategy is one of action in appearance only. It is political because a course that is morally right and in the best interests of America and Iraq will not be taken and is framed in a way that undermines it.
I believed before the invasion that the war was illegal, immoral and likely a catastrophe. Aside from political questions, it should never have been instigated, regardless of the fact that 70% of voters believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and building nuclear weapons. That said, you’re correct in saying it is disingenuous to argue that voters must be heard regarding one issue but ignored regarding another. But that is not what anyone is arguing. It simply is not true that defunding the war is disarming the troops and putting them at risk.
If the public was polled on the question of Congress ending the war by not appropriating funds to continue it (a constitutionally mandated authority) with no harm to the troops, would they vote against it? It seems more likely to me that since Dem leaders began propagating the idea that defunding would endanger the troops early on, their strategy was not to immediately end the war but to tie the Republicans to that sinking ship.
I think we are obligated to end this disastrous crusade regardless of the political consequences. And I believe that some of the powers-that-be have wanted to continue war in Iraq because it is their only ticket to war with Iran. What are those who say give it time going to say when we take it into Iran? I also want to see the party of torture ridden out on rails in ‘08, but I don’t think the way the Dems are playing this makes them any stronger.
June 11, 2007 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't figure out why people keep saying the "Iraq War" is going to be a big deal in the politics of 2008. The war -- that is, American grunts moseying around Iraq and taking pot shots at the locals and receiving answering pot shots in turn -- will be over by then.
The "surge" will be complete by April 2008 -- and successful. The neighborhoods adjacent to the Green Zone will have been pacified. The Sunni tribes out in Indian Country will have become dependent upon us and have been brought over to our side and sufficiently armed to keep the Shia out of the areas important to us.
We'll be bringing troops home -- say, 75,000 to 100,000 -- and garrisoning the remainder in our super bases where we can provide close air support (and the necessary occasional assassination) to protect oil infrastructure and our supply lines -- and our Sunni allies.
The daily report of American casualties will be a thing of the past.
As Mitt or Rudy will be saying, "It's not about Iraq, folks; it's all about al Qaeda and who you trust to keep you safe in your beds for the next four years."
June 11, 2007 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blame the Democrats works great as sticking up for certain values, politics, and policies, but sorrry to both Max and most commenters here: It's still magical thinking. Click your heels, Democrats, and Bush and the war will go away. How about today, where we lost on Gonzales?
It's selective blame, just as the group here is more likely to blame Gore and Kerry for losing but blame the media for snuffing out Dean, Kucinich, or even (at least in my own view) Edwards this time.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 12, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't have been enough, but I wish Dodd and Obama bothered to show for this one. And, of course, the Liebermonster voted against the resolution. Grrrr.
aMike
June 12, 2007 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember if it was a commentator or GWB himself, but GWB's remarks on Gonzales were introduced by saying that GWB still asserts control over who serves in his government. I grumbled at the radio, "It's my government, thank you very much."
June 12, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for myself, and not blaming commenters for blaming Democrats, I criticize the strategy the Dems took on this but do not blame them for anything outside their capacity. I don’t think Gore and Kerry have even been mentioned, but again, nice of you to tell people what they think. I do think they got a bad break from the media and so did the others.
As far as funding the war, it is an appropriation bill (a positive action) that can include whatever limits the majority decides on. As Max begins his post- a veto-proof majority isn’t germane. Unfortunately, appearance and posturing are part of wielding power. Dems stormed into DC with public support behind them for change, but they’ve squandered that capital with weak reactionary, half-hearted measures. Republicans were cowed by the mid-terms and had no political muscle to oppose the Dems’ agenda.
In January and February, Bush was inviting Dems over to “work together” because he was in a diminished position. Dems needed to hit the Republicasns hard and force them out on issues but they balked at the least resistance. But when it became apparent that the Dems were not going to hold fast, Republicans went right back into bullying mode, even though they’re not in a position of strength. Dems don't even challenge Republican "obstruction." If the minority can stop anything they want, why did the Dems allow passage of the Military Commissions Act and all of the other odious legislation? I see Republicans like McConnell, Specter or Trent "Nuclear Option” Lott, for Christ’s sake, in the news as much as Harry Reed.
The Gonzales vote yesterday is a good illustration of a weak posture they have taken. The AG has lied to Congress, illegally politicized Justice and won’t even turn over requested evidence, but Congress can’t even slap him on the wrist? Bush simply laughs off Dems’ “meaningless” pronouncements. Don’t you see how the Dems are cutting their own throats by trying to play the moderate nice guys and waiting for '08 to assert themselves?
June 12, 2007 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We need more of what is described as unreflexive 'knee-jerk' pacifism that assumes interventionists are more likely to be a force for evil and stupidity, rather than for good. It's justified by the history, and by current events."
I agree. And if we really want to avoid
adding to global violence, we should restore the draft, making military service compulsory for all under the age of 30 when we are at war anywhere the world. There should be a lottery (as there was at the end of the Vietnam war) and
very few ways of buying your way out of service (by going to grad school etc.)
If we had had a draft, we never would
have gone into Iraq. The vested intersts just won't send their own children to war unless there is a very, very good reason.
In other words, I proposing that we restore the draft--and hope to never use it.
June 12, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we had had a draft, we never would have gone into Iraq.
I'm not sure that 60,000 soldiers and maybe, 15,000 marines a year less volunteers -- an awfully small percentage of the draft age cohort -- would make a lot of difference. And the elites can always get their children into the safe branches. How 'bout the Coast Guard if the Navy's too dangerous?
Note: After Nixon went to a draft lottery, most campus demonstrations stopped.
June 12, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If we had had a draft, we never would have gone into Iraq." You mean the way we never went into Vietnam?
"The vested intersts just won't send their own children to war unless there is a very, very good reason." But they will send yours (after, that is, they simply bomb other nations to smithereens, and those deaths would count, too). They sure sent somebody's to Iraq, and they died pointlessly. It's not a price I'd wish anyone to pay in the hope of preventing future wars.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 12, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen and jhaber:
Once Nixon put the lottery in place-and made it clear that the lottery would trump all of the easy exemptions-- support for the war in the general population screeched to a halt.
A great many parents in the heartland had already turned against the war-- and Walter Cronkite helped--but this was the final nail in the coffin.
And John, we really didn't have a real draft when we went into Vietnam. Virtually everyone I knew got out of the draft by: going to Divinity school, paying a shrink to write a letter implyig that they were both gay and very anxious, getting married and having a child, etc. etc. etc.
The only people I knew who went to Vietnam were my cousins--non-college-educated, with few other options. And, to them, it sounded exciting.
Some well-educated men volunteered for Vietnam--- but very, very few were drafted.
In the distant past, Americans of all classes went to war. This is why so many Americans were opposed to our entry into WWII,
even though it was clear that Hitler presented
a real danger to civilized society. But after the losses (and injuries) that the upper class
suffered during WW I, they just had no stomach for it.
June 12, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does defunding the troops as a means to force Bush
to bring them home endanger them? I don't believe so either even though Senator Levin whom I respect indicated as best I can remember that it could. What I do believe is that a majority of the voters strongly believe that it does.
This is also a truth that matters because ignoring the political consequences may mean ignoring the fact that if the voters turn the government back over to the Bushies we almost certainly will have at least two years of war with IRAN. (And, oh by the way, lose our democracy which has long term consequences far grimmer than the various neocolonial Wars George II and company want us to engage in.)
That said many voters, especially men up say to age 45 want their government to be tough. If the Democrats appear weak in Congress this will redound to the Democrats political detriment.
When assessing what the Publican minority can do now, versus what the Democratic minority could do then please remember they also have George II's veto power.
June 12, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I do not believe that this argument can hold. If you respect the 'majority' desire to end the Iraq war do you not also have to respect the ' majority' qualms about the means?"
No, because you're buying their message framing again. People VOTED for a "change of course". They want out of Iraq. They want to be lead out of Iraq. You have to frame the message as leading the country out of Iraq and bundle it with other messages like saving hundreds of millions of tax dollars and returning the National Guard to their families, etc.
Instead, you have Senators like mine repeating over and over and over again the REPUBLICAN message -- "I can't stomach defunding our troops" she says. Why say that!!!! Why not say you elected me to bring the Minnesota National Guard back to Minnesota where they belong.
June 12, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It ain't gonna happen, but the history of the draft is still worth discussing ---
During WWII men of the social class ordinarily bound for college -- at the time, a small percentage of the draft age cohort -- were deferred, that is, they were assigned to the Army Special Training Program. This program sent them to college on the taxpayers' dime. Graduates of the program, their education (class?) making them too valuable to waste as cannon fodder, were assigned to non-combat duties. Matters did finally change in 1944 and many of the later enrollees did, to their great chagrin, find themselves in combat roles in the latter few months of the war.
So much for the idea of classless sacrifice, of Ms. Mahar's romantic idea that "in the distant past, Americans of all classes went to war." Yep. Just not equally.
Vietnam: The first draft lottery was held December 1, 1969. There's no evidence that it had any effect on the support for the war -- and it certainly didn't end it any sooner than it otherwise would have ended.
On the ground wars are always fought by the dumb and despised -- Oxbridge poets to the contrary nothwithstanding.
June 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Max's main point is it would have taken only 41 senators to stop the funding for Bush's war. This could have happened even in the bad old days. Any claim to the contrary is a lie. Compromise is not the method for ending a disaster. The Democrats don't seem to know how to govern.
As to impeachment, that's the House of Representatives' business "Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." It is, thus, by simple majority. The Senate may have trouble convicting, "Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." But that is a different matter.
There is no better place to look for high crimes and misdemeanors than the bill of particulars raised against King George in the the Declaration of Independence. There are twenty seven particulars raised against King George. Of these, nine can be brought against George W. Bush. They are these:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
--George Bush exhibits this particular through his use of signing statements to undermine laws.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance
--George Bush exhibits this particular through his use of the Department of Homeland Security to harass travelers and by using security alerts to frighten the electorate.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
--George Bush exhibits this particular through his secret and illegal domestic spying programs.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
--They pay a couple $thousand gratuity for every "accidental" civilian death in Iraq.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
--Do I really need to explain this one?
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
--Guantanamo Bay
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
and
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever
--This has to do with use of treaties and other national devices to undermine state and local laws. These particulars also fall to the Republican dominated Congress.
So, NINE of the 27 particulars against King George can also be brought against George Bush. ONE THIRD! Yet the Democrats won't impeach him.... What a shame.
June 12, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what would the voters have done in 2006 if 41 Senators had filibustered funding the war?
Yes I know what the voters 'should have thought' but I also know the existing MSM.
You have to bring the voters with you or you have counterproductive results. Repeating the Republican line is not the way to do it but neither is taking a step that the majority of voters currently see as stabbing the troops in the back. It doesn't matter whether I accept that framing or not if the voters do.
June 13, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is just the hypothesis of the MSM and the cowards in Congress that anyone outside 495 thinks this is "stabbing the troops in the back."
The trouble with our Democratic Congressmen and Senators is that they vote in a way they think will influence the next election, not in a way that will make the best policy now.
If they keep running from losing their skinny majority, they will do it. We didn't elect them to play footsie with lobbyists.
June 13, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen--
This really isn't just a romantic idea.
This from military.com "The upper class was widely represented during World War II. Partly, because there was a draft that swept up almost every able-bodied man; partly because members of the American upper class felt it was their duty to serve their country in such a solemn hour for the defense of freedom. Many members of the upper class were drawn to William Donovan's OSS, giving it the kitschy nickname of "Oh-So-Social."
"
The OSS was certainly very different from being
cannon fodder, but still this is very differnt from what happened during Vietnam (and very, very different from what happened during Gulf Wawr I and Gulf War II. As Military.com points out:
"During the Vietnam War, the upper class still
fought, but the percentage of the military from its ranks was significantly dwindled from World War II. "
Moreover, there is no reason (except resistance from those who want to make war, but don't want to send their own sons to war) that a 21st century draft couldn't be far more egalitarian--and based on a lottery (which was a brilliant stroke toward the end of Vietam. Everyone I knew at my Ivy League university was truly scared. Many were my friends; I didn't want them to be scared. But the difference,pre-lottery and post-lottery was dramatic.
Finally, these things can change over time. During the Civil War it was very easy to legally pay someone to go in your place. This was no longer true during World War II.
June 13, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm. Quoting, as you do, Ray Starmann at military.com isn't about to add much in the way of authority.
Ray Starmann served as a U.S. Army officer during 1988-93, and is a high school history teacher in Santa Monica, Calif. He can be reached at saber2bravo@earthlink.net SoldiersfortheTruth
Actually, to do so is more than a bit ironic. Starmann was raised in Lake Forest, Il. and served in the military intelligence branch -- typical, all too typical. See, StrategyPage
June 13, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your history but I don't agree with you on the draft. I certainly still remember the utter frustration of kids too young to vote being subject to the draft and it makes little difference that they can now vote at 18. You still are coercing the powerless into fighting the battles of the powerful.
My 86 year old mother will tell me to this day how different both Vietnam and Iraq are from WWII. WWII fully engaged the society. They still remember rationing. My mother remembers volunteering in the motor corps and driving people to meet the wounded on the trains and plains that were criss-crossing the country during the war.
How about a war tax? How about a tax on war profits? And if we're going to compel universal service or inflict a lottery - lets start drafting people at age 50 and work down. We've got middle-aged physicians in Iraq, why not draft attorneys and CEOs and accountants. No more of the mega money for contractors and Halliburton. Draft Halliburton management. Make their service a sacrifice.
But drafting young people while old people are engaging in war for profit is about as wrong as it gets.
June 13, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is little doubt in my mind that the well connected avoided Vietnam unless they wanted to go. Maybe not every last one of them, but in great quantities.
George W. Bush remains a coward in my mind, not simply for being AWOL (I think the evidence is strong enough), but also for being in the Air National Guard in a devious way that kept him out of Vietnam in the first place. The leadership of the Republican party seems to have quite a few of these cowards. As poor a candidate as John Kerry was, he was not a coward.
I personally do no admire members of the military as I understand them to be trained killers. I think the US does a pretty good job of random encouragement of killing with liberal gun laws and doesn't need a bunch of trained killers. But, I consider people who will send other people's children to war, while profiteering off the war themselves to be the lowest form of slime. This pretty much defines the rePublican party leadership.
June 13, 2007 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. Are you telling me that Vietnam was a more popular war than WWII? (Incidentally, I'd have gone to war in Vietnam if the draft had run another year. I hope my death would have brought peace to the planet, but I doubt it.)
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 14, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? That's the Senate. Max is speaking about the House.
June 14, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink