Top Dem Announces "This War is Lost"

[Haezed]

I'm not sure this is the best way to handle foreign policy.

 

Now, I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense -- and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.

[ParanoiA]

I'm not sure this is the best way to handle foreign policy.

 

I guess Rush was right afterall. He's been saying for months, if not years, that Democrats own defeat. That they don't want to win and can't wait to declare defeat. Just a few months in majority, and here we are.

 

I think I've been fairly clear that the currect plan isn't working, although I don't see any reason to roast anyone over it since terrorism is a complicated issue that no nation on this earth has been able to solve. I can disagree with adminstration without the pretention that usually comes with it.

 

But why in the hell do some of us want to lose so badly? Isn't that overcompensating disagreement with the war?

[Phi for All]

I think Reid needs some lessons in diplomacy. His implication with the Vietnam / Johnson analogy was pretty clear. There was no reason to actually say, "...this war is lost..."

 

There is an art to such things.

[jackson33]

General Reid, takes his orders from the commander in chief Polosi and maybe her boss Madam Clinton. there is no question the party itself is full 08 election mode and placing their entire future on defeat of our troops in Iraq. any pretense of "support for the troops" has been forfeited on behalf of the fringe elements the leaders would seem to have chosen to follow.

[Pangloss]

IMO the main instigation for the current change in rhetoric is continued pressure from far left campaign contributors, who are disatisfied at the fact that Democrats have not brought about an end to the war.

[bascule]

I'd say the problem is the way neocons have framed the rhetoric

 

This isn't a war. The war ended in 2003.

 

This is a military occupation.

 

We won the war. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! However, the military occupation isn't accomplishing anything.

 

After "the Surge" there was a brief abatement of violence in Baghdad for the month of February. Fast forward two months, and we have, in one day (Wednesday of this week):

 

http://www.juancole.com/2007/04/bloody-wednesday-guerrillas-violence.html

 

- 300 dead from a string of bombings in Baghdad

- Children being pulled alive from beneath the charred corpses of their parents

- Furious Iraqi citizens throwing charred body parts at American soldiers

 

This is, of course, a whole order of magnitude more deaths than occurred in America in the VT shootings, yet doesn't begin to enter into the public consciousness... whereas the VT shootings have completely dominated the news media.

 

The military occupation of Iraq has not improved the state of the region. We are only there because this administration refuses to relent and admit past mistakes, an approach which extends to all levels of their operation.

[Pangloss]

The left calls it a "war" too, bascule.

[CPL.Luke]

but thats just the rhetoric, this isn't really a war in the traditional sense of the word.

[Haezed]

but thats just the rhetoric, this isn't really a war in the traditional sense of the word.

 

You could argue tha Vietnam wasn't a "war" in the traditional sense of the word because we never invaded the enemy.

[Pangloss]

And in Vietnam we had 5x the troops and 16x the deaths. I think our sensitivity level has risen hand-in-hand with our political partisanship. The left doesn't really want us out of Iraq, they want to see the neocons fail in their key ideological mission. Similarly, the right would be perfectly content with several of the "first 100 days" legislation (some of which has been proposed by Republicans in previous years!), except that it would mean success for the Democrats.

 

Politics at its worst.

[bascule]

The left calls it a "war" too, bascule.

 

An indicator of what a good job the neocons have done of framing the debate

 

The left doesn't really want us out of Iraq

 

You're right. If the latest Pew poll is any indicator, then a sizable fraction of "the right" wants us out too:

 

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=313

[Pangloss]

An indicator of what a good job the neocons have done of framing the debate

 

Perhaps, but interestingly I think it's just for lack of a better term. They wanted to set "war" aside with "Mission Accomplished", right? They just didn't have anything better to call it.

 

Interestingly, I think the "neocon" movement is largely defunct at this point, a casualty of its own "success". PNAC is basically a shell, and the Heritage troopers have shifted their focus a bit. The people are still around, though, and their positions haven't changed a WHOLE lot.

[monthir]

the war is not just lost but indeed resulted in reverse results then what Bush hoped & that is because it was a totally unjustified war. He assaulted Iraq on claims of weapons of mass destruction(which proved to be a fabricated claims),he claimed a relation Between saddam & al Qaeda ( again proved wrong ,not only that it is clear that saddam were an enemy to Al qaeda ,because his regime was secular not religious).indeed Saddam were representing a factor of balance at least in face of Iran the country seeking the nuclear weapons & it is the side gaining the most benefits of this war

[Haezed]

Perhaps, but interestingly I think it's just for lack of a better term. They wanted to set "war" aside with "Mission Accomplished", right? They just didn't have anything better to call it.

 

Thank you. Exactly.

 

This point was illustrated by the struggle on this board to come up with a label for this damned thing we are doing. One problem is that after the mission as had been set for the troops initially had been accomplished - toppling Saddam - what was left involves more than a generational struggle. It was the remnant of a struggle dating over a thousand years and can't even be named without alienating the vast majority of Muslims who are peacable.

 

The "war to destroy Muslims who still think it's the 700C" would indeed have been counterproductive. We've argued about the use of the word "war" but that's not the bothersome part. We've used the word "war" imprecisely for a long time. We've fought undeclared wars. We've had wars on poverty and on energy dependence. I think everyone knows its a bit of a vague term these days with shifting meanings.

 

The "terror" part is really problematic because here is where we define the enemy. We really can't define the enemy any more precisely except to say it's about "those people" who use terror and that it's not a war against Islam. The truth is that its a "war" - in a meaning that is somewhat more firm than the "war" on poverty" - against those elements of radical islam that would use terrorist methods against us. This wisely goes unsaid and it is a bit ironic to criticize GWB for leaving it unsaid. It may be one of the most diplomatic things he has done.

 

 

Interestingly, I think the "neocon" movement is largely defunct at this point, a casualty of its own "success". PNAC is basically a shell, and the Heritage troopers have shifted their focus a bit. The people are still around, though, and their positions haven't changed a WHOLE lot.

 

It will only take another 9/11 or worse for neocon to be perceived as middle of the road.

[jackson33]

i find it hard to understand, leaving a person like Saddam and certainly his two sons, in power to do what they were known to have done for any stability factor. this is like saying Hitler, should have been left alone since he controled the Jews.

 

Saddam, could have prevented the actions, for YEARS, simply by letting the UN inspectors in to verify, what you say..." no WMD..."

 

the US took actions to force compliance to the United Nations demands. not to find WMD. possibly to make sure, but not the sole concern.

[geoguy]

What a bizarre discussion. The war is LOST. The emperor has no clothes.

 

The Democratic leader should keep the lies going? Play the ostrich game? What a friggin joke the USA has become.

[Pangloss]

He assaulted Iraq on claims of weapons of mass destruction(which proved to be a fabricated claims)

 

No they didn't, they proved false. They may have been fabricated, but that has not been proven.

 

 

,he claimed a relation Between saddam & al Qaeda ( again proved wrong ,not only that it is clear that saddam were an enemy to Al qaeda ,because his regime was secular not religious).

 

Actually we know factually that there was contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but there is no evidence that Iraq participated in (or even knew about) 9/11, which suggests (almost, but not quite, conclusively) that it was not involved.

 

Saddam's regime was secular, but it had plenty of religious and political common ground with Al Qaeda. Both were Sunni, and opposed to the expansion of Iran. Both were opposed to the United States. Both were opposed to Israel. The fact that Al Qaeda came into existence to thwart the expansionist actions of Iraq was clearly less important to both parties ten years after the fact.

 

Whether or not anything would have come of that is another matter. In my view, speaking purely of realpolitik, it wasn't sufficient information to rate a war. (The moral issues regarding the war in Iraq concern me very little, if at all.)

 

 

indeed Saddam were representing a factor of balance at least in face of Iran the country seeking the nuclear weapons & it is the side gaining the most benefits of this war

 

Please explain how Saddam could possibly prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons when the United States doesn't have a single weapon in its arsenal that can do that. I don't think that's clear at all, but maybe Saddam had some bunker-busters that were more powerful than ours that I'm just not aware of?

 

I certainly agree that Iran is gaining the most from this war. We've gone and created The Second Shi'a State. The world may never forgive us for that.

[Pangloss]

The Democratic leader should keep the lies going?

 

What do you propose she do about it?

[geoguy]

What do you propose she do about it?

 

Get out of Iraq NOW!

[Sisyphus]

I wonder if they could get more support for Iraq if they called it "peacekeeping," which actually might be closer to the truth than "war." Of course, it's probably far too late for that, since they've been pushing it as a war that can be won or lost for too long, and they would look stupid completely changing everything now.

 

EDIT: Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realize that wouldn't work. If it's a "war," then leaving is "surrendering" and we've "lost," which would be unbearable for the testosterone crowd. There's no such urgency with "peacekeeping." Also, with peacekeeping, you kind of have to admit there's at least something like a civil war, which they've been furiously denying. But even if you did, you'd have to admit basically taking sides...

[Pangloss]

Get out of Iraq NOW!

 

And how do you propose she do that? She doesn't have the authority to give orders to the troops.

[ParanoiA]

the US took actions to force compliance to the United Nations demands. not to find WMD. possibly to make sure, but not the sole concern.

 

You know, I used to defend the war on those grounds. Also, due to the other 9 resolution violations. But the kicker still is: Those were UN violations - not American violations. It was for the UN to pursue, not america. I have no problem with dropping the UN and turning our back on them for not having the balls to stick with their own demands - for not using power to back up their peace making abilities.

 

But, our preemptive strike was about snatching WMD's in self defense. That's how it was sold. WMD's were smuggled and hidden in the half year advanced notice we gave Saddam and friends, so they weren't going to be found anyway.

 

The Iraq invasion was promoted as a sole concern over WMD's...

[jackson33]

the reasons for action, are just that. even the loyal opposition, as they changed from national concerns to political, will admit the UN violations were instrumental. the war then which, was very short and successfully now history.

 

the problems came as a power gap consumed the minds of several factions, including militant factions. these entities are eying one element *oil* and the power it could provide. the total lack of concern for there own followers in many cases and the disregard for human life, tells me this philosophy will not stop in Iraq. as mentioned we are also obligated to complete the rebuilding of a governing, to an enforceable level.

 

like it or not, the area *mid-east* is subject in total to turmoil. not just Iraq if this policy fails. if this were to happen, Saudi Arabia is in line for the same thing, to say nothing of Israel. i do not like using the *domino theory*, but the idea of a radical Islamic rule in much of the world is a real possibility. although, my concern is not for the US, yet, many European Nations are subject to no less than what is occurring in Iraq today.

 

as the US did, with Germany in the 30's, we have done with the issue of radical Islam, over many decades. we do not all speak German or check our neighborhood for the Jewish now. in the future i hope, women can maintain independence (equality with males), my laws are not replaced by the Koran, i am allowed to speak English and by all means have the right to practice whatever religion i so desire. if you feel this is an unjust assessment, i suggest you visit the nearest Mask, Bible in hand and take your wife. it won't work and its that way, in the US today....

 

point; look at the total problem, not some political view of some to enhance some desire for power.

[geoguy]

"Saudi Arabia is in line for the same thing"

 

and that's a bad thing because... women might not be treated as animals? Bloomington sales might drop because the royals princes won't be shopping? Bush can't refer to the next thug who runs the country as 'his good friend'?

[ParanoiA]

Well, this is funny. Rush is calling him a traitor for declaring defeat. He's calling him Benedict Reid, or something like that. He wants him brought up on charges, since that's the left's tactic used against conservatives now - apparently referring to calls for Bush's impeachment and etc.

 

But, even stretching it, could you really be a traitor for declaring defeat? He's not in a position for it to have any value is he?