All Posts Tagged With: "Iraq"
Quote from the playbook for selling the Bush/McCain war?
“People don’t want to go to war…. But, after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship…. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country.”
Actually, this quote is from Hermann Göering during his trial at Nuremberg. It is eerily chilling how fully his words apply to the Bush/McCain crusade to war.
Army Strong?
My brother is in the process of signing up for the military. He isn’t joining the Army but almost everyone else who is going through the sign up process with him is. Even though none of them have yet signed the dotted line, he’s catching a great deal of hell from the rest of them because he’s joining another branch. How quickly an identity can attach itself.
The Army is now paying a $20,000 signing bonus, in part because being in the Army is a riskier proposition than some of the other branches.
Recently I’ve read a few articles about soldiers fighting who weren’t really fit to serve, but who were pushed through the process because of the troop shortage. I’ve heard some reports of very slow kids being coached through the ASVAB (the written proficiency test). My brother told me that all of the kids he talked to said the recruiters told them to lie about certain health conditions, like asthma and even sleepwalking. It isn’t a few rouge recruiters. It is a collective, unspoken practice.
Those individuals who aren’t able to serve, because of a limited intellectual capacity or a physical infirmity, are still honoring their country by trying to do their part. But how are we serving them? Are we setting them up to fail, or worse yet, get hurt or killed? How are we serving the the other soldiers who join with them to form an interdependent chain with weaker than acceptable links? Should a good soldier turn in their recruiter as soon as they sign the dotted line? The questions about what is and is not honorable become a little more gray as we become more desperate for troops.
Thoughts on Petraeus/Crocker Hearing, Part II
Okay, back for Round 2 in front of the Foreign Relations committee. One thing just off the bat is that this is an impressive committee with a lot of impressive people. Some brief thoughts:
(1) Biden Nails Crocker: One of the best moments of either hearings was when Biden asked Crocker whether, if he had to choose between taking out al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan or al-Qaeda in Iraq, which he would want to focus on. It placed Crocker in a tough spot, and of course he was forced to give the only sensible answer, which is to focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is a central point, and Biden made it better than anybody.
(2) Sensible Republicans: Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel showed off the best we can expect from the Republican Party on Iraq. Neither have been ideal, and Lugar in particular has shown a disappointing reluctance to show some more fight in his opposition to our Iraq policy. But nevertheless, they both clearly realize that we are engaged in a failing strategy – or, more accurately, we have no strategy at all.
(3) Feingold Shows These Hearings Are Pointless: Russ Feingold, unsurprisingly, rocked the house. He expressed his disappointment that the only two people testifying at these hearings are people whose jobs are to narrowly focus on Iraq rather than taking a broader regional or global perspective. It’s a point that Petraeus and Crocker themselves drove home throughout the hearings as they repeatedly answered questions about the broader consequences of our Iraq strategy by saying (accurately) that it isn’t their job to look at those broader consequences. These hearings are getting a lot of attention, and in a lot of ways that’s good because Iraq needs to be paid more attention than it has been recently. But ultimately, these are not the guys we most need to hear from. They’re doing the best they can with the mess they’ve been handed, but the important decisions that the Congress and the President need to make require a broader view than either Petraeus or Crocker can possibly provide.
(4) Obama Doesn’t Disappoint: I wasn’t quite sure where Obama was going when he started out. His questions seemed meandering and a little insignificant, but he tied everything up pretty neatly in the end, making two good points. The first was that if Prime Minister Maliki can engage in relations with Iran despite the fact that everybody knows Iran is supporting insurgent Shi’ite militias who would like to bring Maliki’s government down, then surely the United States can participate in the same kind of diplomacy. The second addressed directly the point I made in my previous post on these hearings about McCain’s stunningly ambitious definition of success in Iraq. Obama first forced Petraeus and Crocker to acknowledge that we have no hope of creating a situation in which there is no remnant of al-Qaeda in Iraq and there is no degree of influence from Iran, and used these two points to illustrate the fact that any realistic notion of success in Iraq has to be messy. Requiring success in Iraq to meet something like McCain’s definition, Obama said, “portends the possibility of us staying for 20 or 30 years.” We have to acknowledge that when we leave, there will be some level of terrorist violence, some level of Iranian influence, and Iraq’s government will not be a fully functioning, prosperous democracy.
Thoughts on the Petraeus/Crocker Hearing, Part I
I was unavoidably delayed this morning and ended up not being ready soon enough to get to class on time, so I just decided to take the day off. And I picked a good day, because now I get to watch General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testify before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Foreign Relations hearing is just getting under way, but a few initial thoughts on this morning’s Armed Services hearing.
(1) Bad Timing: One important part of Petraeus and Crocker’s testimony dealt with the recent conflict in Basra between Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and Shi’ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Claire McCaskill asked Crocker a spot-on question: wasn’t the outcome of the Basra conflict a sign that al-Sadr is in a position of power over Maliki? Crocker tried hard to argue that this was not the case: “What I’ve seen since the [violence] in Basra has been very broad-ranging political support for Maliki.” Maliki had issued al-Sadr an ultimatum to either disband his Mahdi army or give up politics. Al-Sadr responded today by threatening to end the cease-fire. More importantly, Iraq’s top Shi’ite religious leaders today told al-Sadr not to disband his army. This totally undermines Crocker’s argument that Basra is a sign of progress and has led to greater support for Maliki. McCaskill rightly pointed out that al-Sadr is holding all the cards here.
(2) Unexpectedly Impressive: I’ve never been a fan of Evan Bayh or Bill Nelson, and obviously I have my differences with Hillary Clinton. But all three of these senators were showing their best selves today and grilled Petraeus and Crocker with pointed, incisive questions. Of these three, Bayh was perhaps the best, nailing down most of the strongest arguments for withdrawal from Iraq: the central threat to American security is not in Iraq but in Pakistan and Afghanistan; we shouldn’t be taking “marching orders from Osama bin Laden;” the intelligence community at large does not tend to take the rosy view of political progress that Crocker does; etc.
(3) Expectedly Impressive: Less surprising was the fact that Sens. Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, and Jack Reed were consistently sharp. Reed pointed out the seemingly impossible task of disarming the Mahdi army. Petraeus admitted that for Maliki to order the Mahdi army to disband would “undoubtedly result in violence,” but tried to argue that a more gradual process could be successful in which members of the Mahdi army are provided “alternatives” for employment. Reed was skeptical: “It sounds like less an employment problem than an existential one.” Webb asked Crocker a particularly smart question about the status of forces agreement currently being negotiated with Iraq, trying to pin down what sorts of provisions would need to exist in such an agreement such that the President would be required to submit it to the Senate for advice and consent. It didn’t really get anywhere, but it was a good question nevertheless, and maybe Webb will push harder on that point this afternoon when it’s his turn on the Foreign Relations Committee.
(4) McCain’s Definition of Success: I obviously didn’t expect to be in agreement with John McCain or many of the other Republicans on the committee. But unlike most of the other Republicans, McCain displayed a somewhat bizarre level of optimism. While the other Republicans did their best to emphasize that “progress” was being made as compared to the war’s low point in 2006, tried to argue the central cause for that progress was the surge, and stirred up fears of a worst-case scenario for withdrawal, McCain went beyond this. Not only did he argue that there had been progress, but he painted a vision of success that was incredibly ambitious: “the establishment of a peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threats to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists.” That sure does sound awesome, but also far beyond what even many supporters of a continued troop presence would think reasonable to hope for.
Petraeus is in the middle of his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee and then questions will be underway there. There are some pretty heavy hitters on this committee: Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Jim Webb, Russ Feingold, as well as Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel on the Republican side. Obviously all eyes will be on Barack Obama, but I’m betting he won’t be the only one who lands some blows. I’ll try to throw up some more thoughts when it’s over.
The Good
Army Staff Sgt. Ian Newland spotted the enemy grenade inside the Humvee. Almost simultaneously, he saw Spc. Ross McGinnis, 19 — a gunner standing in the turret of the vehicle — lower himself onto it.
“I saw him jam it with his elbow up underneath him,” says Newland, who was sitting inches away. “He pressed his whole body with his back (armor) plate to smother it up against the radios.”
The heat and flash of an explosion followed, and McGinnis was killed. Hours later, after surgery for shrapnel wounds, Newland realized the gravity of what happened: McGinnis had sacrificed himself to save four other soldiers in the Humvee on Dec. 4. “Why he did it? Because we were his brothers. He loved us,” Newland says.
Since the Iraq war began, at least five Americans — two soldiers, two Marines and a Navy SEAL — are believed to have thrown themselves on a grenade to save comrades. Each time, the servicemember died from massive wounds.
What’s Next After the Veto?
This post from Talking Points Memo provides an interesting perspective on how Congressional Democrats should handle things after President Bush’s veto of the war spending bill, both from a policy standpoint and a political strategy standpoint. A House aide who is one of TPM’s sources provides the pros and cons of both of the current proposals under consideration: (1) sending the President a short-term spending bill without limitations of any kind, forcing him to come back to the Congress regularly to get more funding (favored by John Murtha), and (2) sending the President a bill that does not have a timetable but does set benchmarks for Iraqi progress (an approach apparently gaining support among the Democratic leadership).
The aide’s perspective on the short-term funding approach:
“The pros are that you keep your Democratic caucus more or less where it is. In essence, you’re saying, `Fine, you’re getting your money, but you’re on a short leash.’ You’re not getting a blank check. You’re forcing GOP members to go on record funding the war. You’re forcing the GOP members to stand with the President.”
“One of the cons is that some of the people who will also be taking heat for the vote would be moderate Blue Dog Dems, who would vote for it. Also, it would be pretty close to a `clean’ bill. It certainly wouldn’t have any sort of timeline or limitations on the President.”
[Because of this, many liberal members, though supportive of this as a general strategic approach, probably would ultimately vote against the bill. Also, Dem Senate leaders have said that the approach would be impractical, though Reid has said that this is definitely in the mix as a possible approach.]
And on the benchmark approach:
“The pros are that you avoid being perceived as withholding money from the troops. So you deprive the President of that platform to stand on. Because GOP members are now making noise about supporting this benchmarks approach, you’d have the first kind of wedge between the White House and Congressional Republicans.”
“The cons are that you’re gonna alienate liberal members and the antiwar Democratic base. Democratic leaders would also be undermining their own language about giving the President a blank check. And potentially, you’d be giving a fig leaf to vulnerable Republicans who otherwise would be vulnerable in the Fall elections by allowing them to say that they’re doing something to hold the administration and the Iraqi government accountable.”
What are people’s thoughts on these approaches as matters of policy and of politics? There’s also, of course, the suggestion that John Edwards has made from the cheap seats: send the exact same bill that Bush vetoed back to him again until he signs it. They all seem to be unappealing options.
Meanwhile, Thomas Sowell at the National Review has a rather more unorthodox suggestion: “When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”
What’s Next After the Veto?
This post from Talking Points Memo provides an interesting perspective on how Congressional Democrats should handle things after President Bush’s veto of the war spending bill, both from a policy standpoint and a political strategy standpoint. A House aide who is one of TPM’s sources provides the pros and cons of both of the current proposals under consideration: (1) sending the President a short-term spending bill without limitations of any kind, forcing him to come back to the Congress regularly to get more funding (favored by John Murtha), and (2) sending the President a bill that does not have a timetable but does set benchmarks for Iraqi progress (an approach apparently gaining support among the Democratic leadership).
The aide’s perspective on the short-term funding approach:
“The pros are that you keep your Democratic caucus more or less where it is. In essence, you’re saying, `Fine, you’re getting your money, but you’re on a short leash.’ You’re not getting a blank check. You’re forcing GOP members to go on record funding the war. You’re forcing the GOP members to stand with the President.”
“One of the cons is that some of the people who will also be taking heat for the vote would be moderate Blue Dog Dems, who would vote for it. Also, it would be pretty close to a `clean’ bill. It certainly wouldn’t have any sort of timeline or limitations on the President.”
[Because of this, many liberal members, though supportive of this as a general strategic approach, probably would ultimately vote against the bill. Also, Dem Senate leaders have said that the approach would be impractical, though Reid has said that this is definitely in the mix as a possible approach.]
And on the benchmark approach:
“The pros are that you avoid being perceived as withholding money from the troops. So you deprive the President of that platform to stand on. Because GOP members are now making noise about supporting this benchmarks approach, you’d have the first kind of wedge between the White House and Congressional Republicans.”
“The cons are that you’re gonna alienate liberal members and the antiwar Democratic base. Democratic leaders would also be undermining their own language about giving the President a blank check. And potentially, you’d be giving a fig leaf to vulnerable Republicans who otherwise would be vulnerable in the Fall elections by allowing them to say that they’re doing something to hold the administration and the Iraqi government accountable.”
What are people’s thoughts on these approaches as matters of policy and of politics? There’s also, of course, the suggestion that John Edwards has made from the cheap seats: send the exact same bill that Bush vetoed back to him again until he signs it. They all seem to be unappealing options.
Meanwhile, Thomas Sowell at the National Review has a rather more unorthodox suggestion: “When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”
Why the SDS is Nowhere to Be Found
Richard Posner explains why those of us who are anti-Iraq War should not be too hard on today’s college students for not acting like their parents.
I agree with him on this completely. Nixon was a crafty SOB, I’ll give him that. When the draft was ended, the resistance movement on college campuses ended virtually overnight. Posner’s analysis explains why only a complete madman would even consider reinstituting it.
Tom
Why We’ve Lost
An active duty Lt. Colonel with two tours in Iraq explains to the country and the general staff why we have lost in Iraq.
Hopefully, telling the truth in this article will not result in the end of his career. Courage is a rare commodity.
Tom
Why We’ve Lost
An active duty Lt. Colonel with two tours in Iraq explains to the country and the general staff why we have lost in Iraq.
Hopefully, telling the truth in this article will not result in the end of his career. Courage is a rare commodity.
Tom