The Republicans are making much of the fact that during the primary campaign Kerry challenged Howard Dean's anti-war stance by proclaiming:
"those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."
They are contrasting it with his recent "wrong war at the wrong time" remarks as an example of flip-floppery, asking "which time was Kerry right, then or now?" It is a false conflict.
The answer: Kerry was right BOTH TIMES. They aren't mutually exclusive. That isn't a "flip-flop," and the fact that the Bush campaign doesn't appear to understand it shows just how lacking in analytical reasoning ability the administration really is. We should not have invaded, and we are better off now that Saddam has been captured. NO CONFLICT and no flip-floppery.
In short, Saddam was a threat but Bush's invasion solution did more harm than good. The world is better off with Saddam gone. We would have been better off without invading to remove him. Confused? Too "nuanced?" Fine. As long as you aren't in charge of our military and putting soldiers in harm's way you can be confused. I expect more from a president though.
This President and his national security team is in charge of our safety in a complicated and dangerous world, but he doesn't appear to have the ability to grasp complicated concepts, instead preferring to ridicule "nuance" and championing an anti-intellectual attitude. As a result of this action-movie hero mentality we have made disastrous mistakes (such as invading Iraq) and continue to make them. We end up with simplistic solutions to complex problems. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars and over 1,000 US lives (and thousands and thousands more wounded) and the result is we are less secure than before. And the most immediate threat to us, Islamic Terrorism, is stronger than before. Why in the world should the man responsible for that be given another chance? Because people want to believe, they want to feel good, they don't want to face reality. They don't want to think that 1,000 dead didn't help. They don't want to be afraid. So they follow.
As a side note, this anti-"egghead" attitude that ridicules intellectualism seemingly disqualifies for command such bookish well-read intellectuals as Patton, Rommel, Bradley, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Zhukov, Le Clerc, Yamamoto, and Maxwell Taylor. But hey, it's popular, it makes for great sound-bites, and it will lead to votes.
We shouldn't have invaded, and even if we did we shouldn't have done it in the manner we did (no allies, no plan for political consolidation of military success, not enough troops, etc. etc.), and even then Saddam was still our enemy and a threat, so it is good that he is gone. It just wasn't worth the cost to our national security. And we are NOT safer than before, we are less safe. We will be even worse off than now if we lose and Iraq descends into chaos or turns into "Iraqistan." But that doesn't for one second mean it was a good idea to invade. It was a mistake and our President was the one that made it. I won't vote for somebody with such a terrible national security track record, especially one that has manipulated the truth of 9/11 and WMDs so much that he runs on national security as a STRENGTH.
It is another example of the right-wing's inability to count above two. And it is why, when I say that the invasion was world-class stupid, I always have people try and convince me that we should stay in Iraq and that pulling out would be a disaster. "I agree" I tell them, and then they say "but you said you were against the war." "Yes," I tell them, "I was, and am. It was world-class stupid, and now we need to stabilize Iraq, and I am glad Saddam is gone." And they call me a flip-flopper too.
But don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from a US Army Strategic Studies Institute monograph:
"The war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism; in fact, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM may have expanded the terrorist threat by establishing a large new American target set in an Arab heartland.... Indeed, homeland security is probably the greatest GWOT (Global War On Terrorism) opportunity cost of the war against Iraq.... [Now that we have invaded,] Establishing democracy in Iraq is clearly a desirable objective, and the United States should do whatever it can to accomplish that goal."
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/00200.pdf
One more thing as we sadly pass 1,000 US KIA in Iraq. The Army predicted all of this and was ignored. Ideology trumped reality, and still does. A U.S. Army study on reconstructing Iraq was published the month before Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was launched. It warned:
"If the war is rapid with few casualties, the occupation will probably be characterized by an initial honeymoon period during which the United States will reap the benefits of ridding the population of a brutal dictator. Nevertheless, most Iraqis and most other Arabs will probably assume that the United States intervened in Iraq for its own reasons and not to liberate the population. Long-term gratitude is unlikely and suspicion of U.S. motives will increase as the occupation continues. A force initially viewed as liberators can rapidly be relegated to the status of invaders should an unwelcome occupation continue for a prolonged time. Occupation problems may be especially acute if the United States must implement the bulk of the occupation itself rather than turn these duties over to a postwar international force." Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, February, 2003, p. 17.
And yet the President declared the end to major combat operations hundreds of casualties ago, shortly after our defeat of the Iraqi military. Did he or his staff bother to even read what the Army was saying all along? Didn't he know we were in a "honeymoon" period and that we had a critical window of opportunity that we must seize upon in order to consolidate our military success? No, he didn't. 1,000 US dead later and we are less safe than before and the President was surprised by events that our military was clearly predicting. Don't we deserve better? Don't our troops deserve better?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
No, they are contrasting it with Dean saying, 'Wrong war, Wrong time, wrong place'...which Kerry then critisized...now Kerry is saying, 'Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time'...He switched one word.
Nah, he's not a flip flopper...that's nuance baby!
Great example of completely missing the point. How is saying this war was wrong (as Dean said) the same thing as saying it didn't matter whether Saddam was captured (as Dean said)? well, it isn't. Kerry said both the war was wrong and it was good Saddam was captured.
Some flipflop. You will vote Bush because you like what he says and don't bother learning the truth about what he does.
The fact that you used the russian schoolhouse tragedy (on your blog) to try and show how we on the left don't understand the Islamic roots of the war on terror is an example of the false conflict and tunnel vision I speak of. Yes we were "tough" and "strong" in invading Iraq. As a result we have NOT strenghtened homeland security, our military is fully committed, we have increased terrorist recruitment and sympathy for terrorists, and we have not pursued Al Qaeda with all of our resources, spending them instead in Iraz. All of this makes such a tragedy here at home MORE LIKELY and not less.
You also apparently didn't even notice that Putin's policy toward Chechnya was brutal and based on military strength alone. Worked pretty good, huh? He draws no distinctions between enemies either, choosing to send in force regardless of the nature of the threat. Oh, and Israel has enjoyed great success in using force too. They enjoy nothing but peace now.
Egypt used "sensitivity" in fighting the Muslim Brotherhood, and they WON. Britian changed tactics in Northern Ireland and, while not completely successful, they have done a hell of a lot better than when they used the "kick ass and take names" approach alone.
Before you tell me how Putin was right not to cave in to terrorism, I'll save you some time since you (and the President) can't seem to think of more than two options to any situation. I am NOT saying Putin should have cooperated with terrorists or caved in to Chechnyan demands either. But before I make the "mistake" of using the word "sensitive" in calling for an understanding of the enemy's capabilities and motivations and figuring out how best to defeat him, I'll just drop it with a repeat of what I've said before - there are a lot of options in between appeasement and invasion. Dean was right when he said "wrong war," and he was wrong when he said capturing Saddam didn't matter. Which makes Kerry right both times - when he uses Dean's catchy phrase now, and when he corrected Dean earlier. Some flip-flop.
"Don't we deserve better? Don't our troops deserve better?"
The answer to that question is yes. How the war has been handled, and whether or not the war should have happened are two different things, though. The same questions were probably asked during the Viet Nam war. After I watched things like Grenada and Panama and Desert Storm, I thought we had figured it out, and had a better answer. You go to war with overwhelming force, wreak as much havoc as you possibly can, "Shock and Awe" the enemy into capitulation, and the net impact is dramatically lower casualties all around.
It isn't working that way in Iraq, for a lot of reasons. First, this is new, this thing being called the War on Terror. It is as yet ill defined, and the opponent is poorly understood. There is cultural myopia and even deliberate ignorance. And a lot of confusion about who the enemy is. Hint: it's not just al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is simply the flavor of the month. When their star is no longer ascendant, some other group will take their place. Even if we kill Osama, the problem will not be addressed.
I digress. Pro-war, anti-war, this is all kind of moot. This war (for lack of the appropriate term) will not end if we leave Iraq. So we will have soldiers in harm's way for the forseeable future. Sadly.
So, yes those soldiers deserve better and so does the rest of America. I submit we are in a learning mode, and any commander in chief will err and err drastically in the years to come. We will have to learn as we go. That goes for Bush, and that goes for Kerry. I am unhappy with the lack of endgame preparation in this war. But I am also unhappy that Kerry's response to what should be done is usually couched in terms of "I am a patriot." Big fucking deal. Being a patriot is not hard the way we judge things these days. Anyone that says they're a patriot is a patriot because it would be unpatriotic to challenge their patriotism. Gaaack.
But it is a meaningless redirect. In plain and simple terms, Bush has decided to take out people that he feels threaten our nation. Kind of like (was it Zell) who said something like: if I'm pulling up my patio, and I see a nest of copperheads, I kill them. I'm not going to wait until they attack my grandchildren.
Somehow, all I've gotten from Kerry is that A) He wouldn't have been pulling up that patio anyway. B) But since it's pulled up and you found this alleged nest of copperheads under your patio, it does not justify looking for other copperheads in the tool shed and killing them just in case. C) Maybe there is someone else that can help deal with the copperheads, meanwhile, just contain them until you get a consensus. D) Never forget that cottonmouths are not copperheads, so let's not get distracted with pursuing the wrong snake.
I don't feel that is better. I believe it is worse. I believe al Qaeda is one variety of poisonous snake, but that all poisonous snakes are dangerous and need to be dealt with whether one bit you yet or not.
Yes, that is dangerously jingoistic and nationalistic. That type of thinking cannot become inflamed or we are dealing with Religious War and it will be an ask-no-quarter world for a long time.
But, understand this. If whatever flavor of the month muslim terrorist manages to touch off a nuke in Los Angeles because we were only looking for al Qaeda because the only people we have the right to go after must have a direct verifiable link with 9-11, we will be looking at a very grim and horrifying future. Kerry scares me because of what he says and because of what he does not say. He has not convinced me in any manner that he has a plan or vision for dealing with this threat. The narrow focus on al Qaeda is shortsighted and increases the probability of being blind sided by some other group. I just don't get a good feeling that he is that "better" that our troops deserve. Or the rest of us.
fb
By the way, I completely agree with the basic gist of this paragraph:
"We shouldn't have invaded, and even if we did we shouldn't have done it in the manner we did (no allies, no plan for political consolidation of military success, not enough troops, etc. etc.), and even then Saddam was still our enemy and a threat, so it is good that he is gone."
We did not go in with no allies. France and Germany and Russia are not the only "allies" in the world.
I would like to know why you says this:
"...and the result is we are less secure than before. And the most immediate threat to us, Islamic Terrorism, is stronger than before."
I'm not following your logic there. fb
TWD:
I will say the same thing to you that I said to cheeky...the 'allies' and UN thing is really a 'talking point' and a disingenuous one at that. Bush 41 had full UN support and a giant coalition...and Dems (including John FF Kerry) voted against it --Bosnia didn't have UN approval and the same Dems voted for it. It's a political thing -not an allies thing.
AND I didn’t miss your point…They played the tapes back to back on ‘Special Report’ last night…Kerry is now saying THE EXACT same quote that he slammed Dean for during the primaries. Not the quote you put –the EXACT same one Kerry is now saying (which Teddy Kennedy has been saying for months btw…)
Suzanne....what was the fodder for the terrorists before 9/11 according to this theory? (As that was planned years before Bush was in office). This is such a -well, lets just say this argument doesn't work --No Bush policy and 9/11 happened -- Bush policy and no attacks on our ground. We can't recruit 'worse' terrorists than would fly planes into buildings.
And your right -they don't hate us because we are free -they hate us because we breathe. The Qu'ran orders that our heads be removed from above the neck...the heathens during the week, the Jews on Saturday and the Christians on Sunday. Tactics of terror are also sanctioned in the Qu'ran and Democracy is against Allah. So, no...I don't think foreign policy has a damn thing to do with it --the fact that people won't face that this is a religious war is what I would say the problem is.
...I know -that's not a very PC thing to say, but PC won't save lives...
Vrangel, thanks for the link.
ALa71, your argument is specious. No attacks on our homeland since 9/11 justifies the invasion of Iraq? My goodness no. Or did you forget the span of time b/w the 1993 WTC attacks and 9/11? Or that several terrorists (including Richard Reid and Joseph Padilla) have been picked up since 9/11 before they could carry out attacks? Or most incredibly of all, did you forget that over 1,000 Americans have died and thousands more have been injured and hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent, all in Iraq, while you simply dismiss Suzanne's theory because "nothing has happened"?
It must be comfortable in Republican-land, where every mistake is explained away and reality is just Democratic "spin."
And Frater, I agree that we should be taking action to prevent nuking our cities (uhh, ESPECIALLY LA thank you very much) but my point, and Suzanne's, and CheekyMonkey's (thanks Cheeky!) is that the war on terror was NOT part of the war in Iraq. It didn't make us safer, instead it made it more likely that we will suffer another attack. We aren't doing what is needed to attack and defeat our terrorist enemies - and you are right, not just AQ. We didn't have to attack Iraq, a completely different threat of another order all together, and the invasion had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or terrorism or the threat of WMDs falling into terrorist hands. Sounds good, but its a lie. Iraq was not a threat that justifed invasion. Especially since we should have been spending our resources on hunting down Al Queda, other terrorist allies, and securing our defenses here at home. It didn't happen and we are less safe than on 9/10 regardless of ALa71's "nothing has happened" conclusory opinion.
Zell's hate-spewed analogy of copperheads is a poor analogy, but I'll go with it: kill the dangerous snakes under your patio. Yes. Kill ALL the snakes under your patio, even if you aren't sure they are poisonous. Yes. Don't wait to be bit. Yes. BUT DON'T GO LOOKING FOR SNAKES A HALF MILE AWAY IN THE WOODS WHILE YOUR DAMN HOUSE IS COVERED IN THEM. That is what we did. We have put the fight against the Islamic terrorists that have sworn to destroy us, and that ATTACKED US, on the back burner and instead concentrated our resources against an enemy that presented little viable threat to us - and then incredibly justified this mistake on the grounds of the "war on terror." Because Saddam "might" have chem weapons (turned out he didn't) and "might" have the ability to deliver them here (we knew he didn't and this was confirmed) and "might" share them with terrorists (he didn't and Saddam had a history of executing Islamic fundamentalists - he was an enemy of AQ despite Cheney's ramblings) and this "might" lead to an attack against us that would kill Americans. So we made sure that there was no doubt - we have 1,000 dead Americans and the toll rises daily. At least we don't have to worry about the uncertainty of it all anymore.
We don't have the resources to attack every "potentional" threat to our nation. We need to wisely shepard our resources and prioritize the threats, dealing with them in order. "Actual" threat come before "potential" threats, especially remote threats that have existed for over a decade and grew less likely by the day - the threat of an attack by Saddam. Bush focused on a pre-existing enemy that was successfully contained, that presented no viable threat, that grew weaker by the day, and this has taken resources away from the very real and present threat Islamic Terrorism presents. This meets ALa71's definition of success but it sure as hell doesn't meet mine.
I agree we don't need a narrow focus Frater, but we do need SOME focus and we have NONE at all under Bush. 1,000 dead, thousands more wounded, billions that could have been spent fighting terrorism and strenghtening homeland security spent instead in Iraq, and this is Bush's strong point?
But, as always, if you point this out the right begins to try and convince you of the need to fight terror, of how we must defend ourselves, etc. etc. etc. Apparently nobody gives a damn about EFFECTIVELY fighting terror, or even about winning. Just fighting is good enough (makes for great TV) and you don't even need to fight the right guys to appear strong and decisive.
I hate to say it, but this president should be impeached for sheer incompetence in matters of national security. And, amazingly, that issue is his strongest area against his opponent.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
How big is that coalition of the willing again?
--------------------
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica (Reuters) - Bowing to domestic pressure, Costa Rica has told the U.S. government it wants to be excluded from the list of nations that support the war in Iraq, the foreign minister said on Thursday.
In a request to Washington, Costa Rica asked to be dropped from the list of coalition members backing the invasion that is posted on the White House's Internet site.
Costa Rica, which abolished its army in 1949, has not provided troops or aid to the Iraq.
But Honduras and Nicaragua later halted their military involvement and only El Salvador still has troops in Iraq.
Vrangel, you say my party "has chosen spin and propaganda over honest debate." When, exactly, was the opportunity for honest debate presented by the current administration? During Zell Miller's speech? The 9/11 commission hearings? When?
Never.
And you say: "we are more safe and no amount of lawyering can change it. We are more safe because of right choices made by Bush team."
Thanks for the honest debate. It must be true because of all the sources you have given to show we are better off. For instance, you quoted..., well, you cited..., well, you told me so it must be true.
Here is a study that isn't "lawyering", and nobody, including your intelligent self, has commented on it yet:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/00200.pdf
Of course it isn't the only one, but I keep trying to spark an "honest debate" over partisan "spin" and everybody keeps avoiding reading it or seeking to understand how we can best win this war against Islamic Fundamentalism (something very different from a war on "terror" - how the heck can you wage war on a method?).
So let's start the honest debate here. Please read it. It isn't that long, it isn't that "lawyerlike," it is nonpartisan, and it frames the issues our nation must grasp if we are to win with the least cost to ourselves.
And I am partisan, but far from an ideologue. The same with most Army officers I know, regardless of their political affiliation. This isn't an election about repub or dem, or lib or conservative, but about the United States of America - all of us.
Couple of comments. I've not served in the military. My father, younger brother and best friend were in the Navy. Dad on a destroyer, brother on aircraft carrier then reupped and served on FFG (Fast Frigate Guided; told me was basically same ship as the Cole), best friend, Navy jet mech in Kingsville TX. His son enlisted in the Army and is attached to a Stryker team currently in Alaska awaiting probable deployment to Iraq.
All the ex-military I know are nothing if not pragmatic. Non-pragmatism causes death. So, when TWC or Lefty have something to say, I listen real hard. They generally have a reason beside having been brain-washed by the Democrats.
All this war service posturing by both parties is driving me crazy. The issues are being ignored by all major media outlets, as they pant orgasmically over the latest Swift Boat Vet or National Guard bit of trivia.
The reality is things changed in America as a result of 9/11, except for the political process. And the internet has affected the political process in ways that the politicians don't seem to comprehend. You guys have far more credibility with me than Dan Rather does.
So, why did the Democrats pick Kerry? Why not Lieberman? I could vote for him. fb
Thank you Frater. Your comments are as always well thought out and intelligent.
The dems didn't pick Lieberman for two reasons: 1) he agreed and still agrees that we were right to invade Iraq, which the majority of the dems don't agree with, and 2) he is an incredibly weak campaigner. He is Bush-lite. People who would vote Bush would like him better than Kerry, but people who would vote against Bush would not. Since we already have a candidate Bush the dems sought out and found a candidate that offers an alternative - for the war on terror, against invading Iraq. He also is the opposite of Bush on many other issues - pro-health care, job creation, abortion, erasing the deficit, etc.
Plus, you have to admit, Kerry has charisma. He must, because he seems to be saving it for a special moment and nobody could really be that dull and also have a pulse. Maybe he keeps it locked in a box somewhere. A "charisma" box.
As I've said, I'd vote for a block of wood over Bush. Looks like I'll get my chance.
I'm really looking forward to the debates. Watch how our "left-wing biased media" will play to the Republican tune that Bush is a "weak debater." He is, as he said, a "master of low expectations." He will be portrayed as the underdog so that unless Kerry knocks him unconscious Bush will come out looking good. If he doesn't drool on himself and is able to pronounce his own name he will win because Kerry didn't beat him. All he has to do is "not lose." Imagine that, an incumbent president who has never lost a public debate, with a lifetime of political experience, the son of a president and grandson of a senator, who worked on campaigns since before he could vote, against the least-charismatic Senator in his first national debate ever, and the INCUMBENT WILL BE THE UNDERDOG! How backwards is that!?! Sure we have a biased media, but it is anything but slanted left.
Note to Vrangel re: "Leftie fakes think of themselves as being so intellectually superior and are so locked into their belief system they consider anyone who disagrees with them must be an idiot." KETTLE, THIS IS POT. YOU ARE BLACK, OVER. KETTLE, THIS IS POT, COME IN, OVER. :)
And Teresa isn't running for office, by the way. Stepford Laura isn't either. The race is about policies, not personalities. At least it should be. This isn't high school student body president for cripe's sake.
But then, we dems run from "honest" debates, remember?
To reassure you, I know you disagree with me, but I know you are NOT an idiot. I hope you could say the same for me, but that is up to you.
Post a Comment