August 22, 2007
Many Democrats Wrong on Iraq, Again (Brent Budowsky)
Here is my answer to Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Hanlon and the latest tragic evasion and spin currently circulating in high Democratic circles:
This morning's story in The Washington Post is accurate and conforms to what I am hearing privately. Many Democrats are again missing the first principle of the matter and treating Iraq in political and tactical terms.
The latest view from Democrats is to adopt their politics and tactics around the proposition that the Iraq escalation is working but the Iraq leaders are not.
Confronted with an obsessed and intransigent president, Republicans in Congress who are endlessly submissive to presidential power and disastrous policies, and a Democratic national security establishment that is incoherent and careerist, the most likely outcome in September is this:
The president will win full support for the full escalation without any effective limitation in what would be the third disastrous Democratic failure in the new Congress, the first being its surrender on Iraq before the May recess, the second being its surrender on the Constitution before the August recess.
This need not be. However, at this time, it is the most probable outcome, unless something changes. Let's first understand that this was never a surge; that was a propaganda term. It was an escalation currently on course to continue for at least a year and a half, and very possibly longer, if Congress submits again.
Let's get this straight: Any success in Anbar is not because of the surge, but because of the deals made with Sunni insurgents who shortly before the deals were killing Americans, and who are now receiving American aid. This would have happened with or without the surge.
Second, in my view, history will show these deals as a catastrophic mistake. Setting aside the moral and strategic issue of giving money and (directly or indirectly) weapons to those who were recently killing Americans, the end game of these deals depends on the end game of Iraqi politics.
If one believes, as I do, that the government of Iraq (no matter who is prime minister) is unable ever to reach a reconciliation that includes Sunnis and Shi'ites, the aid America is now giving to Sunni insurgents will ultimately be used to kill Shi'ites, and possibly Americans, in escalated sectarian war.
This growing Democratic spin is incoherent. One cannot argue that the Iraqi political system is failing but the surge is succeeding. If the Iraqi political system continues to fail, the surge, or more accurately the escalation, must also fail, because, in effect, the status quo ante is that America is today arming all sides in the sectarian war of Iraq.
If one believes the Iraqi government will not achieve reconciliation, the end game of the status quo is this: We will be asked to continue escalated American military force forever, with the argument that if we do not, there will be genocide when we leave.
If one believes the Iraqi government will not achieve reconciliation, by arming all sides of the sectarian war simultaneously, we will be told that we must stay forever militarily, because the more we arm all sides, the greater the genocide when we leave.
In purely military terms, under the escalation there have been short-term gains in some areas, short-term setbacks in other areas, and a shifting of al Qaeda attacks from some areas to other areas.
In purely political terms, the escalation has had the exact opposite of its marketed intent: Iraqi reconciliation has moved backwards, as parties view our simultaneous aid to all warring factions as reason to avoid, not achieve, reconciliation.
Don't be surprised if there is a phony Iraqi government initiative designed to win the vote in September. Don't be surprised if all Sunni and Shi'ite sectarian warriors make soundings of reconciliation so they can continue to receive American aid, and don't be surprised if Maliki is
replaced through a coup or no-confidence vote, in time for our vote, in September.
In short, they all take our money (and in fact our weapons) as they position to kill each other when we leave, and, in the meantime, take our aid and wait us out.
In truth, a growing faction close to President Bush privately favors a new "Iraqi strongman" to establish some form of authoritarian rule.
Even the ubiquitous Mr. O'Hanlon raised this possibility in one of his many media interviews recently, though to be fair to him, since he hedges his bets more than a Wall Street hedge
fund, it was hard to tell whether favors it, would tolerate it, opposes it, or is merely keeping his options open for future op-eds and media shows.
The big winner of the entire policy has been the government of Iran. The latest entrant into this quagmire is our supposed friend Saudi Arabia, criticized by American officials for its support for insurgents, then rewarded by those same officials with massive new arms sales. This is Kafkaeqsue.
The problem with the Iraq war is the Iraq war.
The reason some of us opposed it from the beginning, unlike the fossilized Democratic national security establishment that has been incoherent or supportive at various times — and unlike the radical discredited neoconservative national security establishment and the inept mainstream Republican national security establishment that often opposed the policy privately but supported it in practice — is this:
Centuries of history prove the tendency, very deep in Iraqi society, not only to break apart, but to fight wars within itself, sectarian faction against sectarian faction.
This was known long before the war began, ignored by an ignorant president with the arrogance to believe that an aggressive preemptive war followed by a corrupt Roman-like occupation could prove history and demographics wrong. It was known by a fossilized, careerist, and incoherent Democratic national security establishment with too many who want to be secretary of state, and too few who combine clarity with political courage.
This was known yesterday; it is known today; it will be known tomorrow. The great issue is how many Americans must die before our policy matches the history, culture, politics and realities of the country we invaded so casually and are trapped in so catastrophically.
The situation today is identical to the various interludes of delusion throughout this war when progress was claimed to be right around the corner. The statue of Saddam fell; Saddam was captured; the Iraqi election was held; Zarqawi was killed. These were all short-term successes
that changed nothing, each met with crowing victory claims by the president, by incoherence from the Democratic security establishment, and by submission from the Congress. Each meant nothing in the end, except to provide rationale for the body count to rise while the carnage continued.
At every step, truth was falsified, false hopes were raised, and failure continued. At every step propaganda was used to create heroes, from Pat Tillman to Jessica Lynch — legitimate heroes in real life, used as public-relations pawns with tissues of lies, deceptions and frauds.
At every step, every American commander became the most brilliant, even when their private advice was ignored. Every successive American commander had his hour of profound deification,
when they were the smartest, the best, the greatest. Generals Franks, Abizaid, Sanchez, Casey and now Petraeus were all deified by the propaganda machine and turned into public-relations pawns for continued disastrous war.
Our current commander, Gen. Petraeus, is a great military thinker from a great military organization, the 101st Airborne, with a near-perfect record of failure in Iraq. His original efforts early in the war led to ultimate sectarian conflict within his regional command. His next mission for training Iraqis to "step up so we step down" was terribly failed, obviously. He allowed American weapons to fall into the hands of our enemies through mismanagement during his tenure.
In September of 2004, shortly before that year's presidential election, Petraeus injected himself into the campaign on behalf of the president through a pre-election op-ed in The Washington Post. He gave glowing reports about the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership that look ridiculous now, three years later.
Petraeus is a good man and great military thinker with a record in Iraq that was so failed and flawed that only in the George Bush era would such a record be deified, and only with such incoherence from the Democratic national security establishment and such insiderism and
laziness from the major media could such a deification of past failures be accepted.
Now we learn the "Petraeus report" will not be the Petraeus report, but the White House report. We learn he will not tesfify about his report but before the White House rewrite of the report.
With the latest maneuvering the administration will try to time his pre-report testimony with — you guessed it — the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. Is there no shame left in Washington?
Meanwhile, every hour this escalation goes forward, our military force structures around the world are further destroyed. Troop rotation schedules move from destructive to cruel. Unmet short- and long-term needs for healthcare, disability and training escalate along with the war.
Recruitment lags and lower goals are met with lower standards that are so severe that obese criminals are encouraged to sign up for combat. Desperate commanders are forced to give aid to those recently killing Americans, with total troop levels actually higher than the announced surge through rotation abuses and greater reliance not only on Sunni insurgents but on mercenary forces and subcontracted security personnel.
Meanwhile, the new British prime minister will soon announce that nation's withdrawal, while the war in Afghanistan deterioriates; the beneficiaries of that war are warlords, poppy merchants, and the Taliban and al Qaeda, who are recruiting and expanding within nations we call allies. Our
Afghanistan mission and the true battle against terrorism are eroded by our terminal obsession with Iraq.
This is the situation the president, Republicans in Congress and some Democrats are now calling a "success."
There is a better way — a way that's not easy, but possible, with a greater chance of true success.
The escalation should be ended, now, with a very careful and orderly reduction of troops starting immediately and proceeding into next year. Nothing precipitous; that is a straw man from a desperate administration. What is needed is a reversal from a war without end and an endless escalation to a careful and orderly de-escalation proceeding in phases that would involve both some reduction and some redeployment of American troops.
Whatever chances of reconciliation exist would rise with this new policy. Instead of providing aid to the different warring factions, Iraqis would know that there is a finite limit to how many Americans we will sacrifice while they continue their sectarian wars.
Note: This change would allow even more aggressive and intense American attacks on al Qaeda in Iraq, strengthen our mission in Afghanistan and allow escalated American attacks against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and on the border with Pakistan.
A redeployed American military would also allow far stronger interdiction of arms coming into Iraq from Syria and Iran, while dramatically lowering American casualties and raising the pressures on
Iraqis to reconcile with cease-fires and broad agreements with each other, if they choose.
Moving to a course of deescalation, now, and rejecting a course of escalation, into 2008, is far wiser and far better for our security, our troops and our true battle against terrorism than further continuing this catastrophic policy of presidential intransigence and Democratic submission hidden by the latest generation of political spin.
25 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
It just goes to show how greedy the neocons and demcons are when it comes to oil.
Any sane person would have gotten out of Iraq a long time ago, but when you have oil fever in your veins things change.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 22, 2007 @ 11:35 am
In one sense the Democratic enablers of the Iraq War are worse than the Republicans, because the Dems know that the war is an unmitigated disaster, yet they continue to support it. And this support flies in the face of overwhelming opposition amongst Party members. A major problem, as I see it, is that there is still no coherent anti-war movement in the U.S. What is needed is millions of people in the streets demanding an end to the madness. I really don't see the Democratic leadership responding to anything short of that. They feel relatively confident about their own electoral prospects in 2008, because they are widely perceived as the lesser of two evils. History will not judge these people kindly, but they are too short-sighted to worry about history.
Comment by Bobbie — August 22, 2007 @ 11:50 am
I say precipitous withdrawal before Bush wargasm and then de-escalate on Bush for IMPEACHMENT, instead.
Comment by Vic Anderson — August 22, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Why don't you give links to the Washington Post story you reference as well as to Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon spin? It would be nice to be able to read these background accounts.
Comment by Robert Barker — August 22, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Igor? Help us here! You seem to be the best Brent translator out there… Peace is not success, reduced deaths is not success, everyone is just arming up and waiting for us to go before the "bloodbath" starts in earnest, no relationships being developed just sectarian hatred??? Diversion for the "real war" help…
Comment by Rich — August 22, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Very, very well written Mr Budowsky
I'd also add that what drives the Blithering W Lackeys and their lunatic neocon Chickenhawk cheerleaders so up the wall is pointing out that all of us who were against this idiocy from the start have been proven 100% correct with every muddle/empty headed decision made by the clearly incompetent President masquerading as Commander in Chief right now
As long as the US is bogged down in Iraq, Iran is strengthened by the hour, I swear, if I didn't despise most conspiracy theories, I'd be thinking that W is actually an al-Qaeda/bin Laden operative, seeing as how he appeases them at every opportunity, and taking part in the terrorists "freedom hating agenda" when W and the Administration subvert the very same US Constitution he swore to uphold by gutting Habeas Corpus and warrantlessly spying on purely domestic communications of political opponents and Administration critics
At this point, if one supports W, one also supports bin Laden, and one cannot, logically, support both the US troops and President Bush Jr, not with all the destructive policies this Administration has wrought on an overstretched, under-armored military being used to prop up a disintegrating US hegemony and empire
Comment by KingCranky — August 22, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
The Iraqis need to have their civil war, as much as I hate to say it. What should we have expected after taking down the one thing, Saddam, that allowed them to live together in a false country carved out by international dictates? I agree Brent, that a redeployment to keep outsiders from entering Iraq is what is needed, while the people of Iraq decide, whether by political or military action, how they want to live. Joe Biden's idea of additionally carving up the country into three sections is absurd, after all, it is what caused all of this in the first place back so long ago. Where do we get the idea that we can uproot a proud people, with ancient traditions and force them into areas alien to them? The Iraqis must work this out themselves, and the rest of the world will have to live with it, good, bad, or ugly. America, as will the Iraqis, will be paying for the deplorable mistakes of the Bush Administration and the go-along Dems for a long, long, time.
Comment by Cindy — August 22, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Rich, Brent's article is a masterpiece of propaganda because it artfully weaves true facts with subtle distortions, adding in unsupportable observations creating an illusion of a well-founded conclusion.
I have just finished a post on a related topic, and let me use a part of it here:
The situation in Iraq has changed in the last 6 months in the following way: there is a surge in defiance of terror at the local level. This is bolstered by the increased US presence in Baghdad and Diayala, and by the increasingly brutal lashing out of Al Qaeda against Sunni populations everywhere, especially in the Anbar until they were essentially driven out of there 3 months ago. This locality-based surge in public support is demonstrated by the dramatically increased tip flow to the US armed forces, as well as a multitude of local and province-wide anti-terror councils.
Maliki is not a pleasant character, and needs to be driven out of power. Yet he is democratically elected using a flawed constitution. This is a problem to be solved.
The Democrats (not all, some have recently flipped or are getting close) are trying to exploit this problem to create a catastrophe in Iraq and, to be fair, to respond to their anti-war base (you can call it pandering, but they are just telling some people what they want to hear).
Now, some new stuff: indeed the success in the Anbar is not due directly to the surge. However, Brent got everything else backwards. People who studied the situation have concluded that the number one reason for the Anbar success is the assessment by the local sheiks, in the typical tribal fashion, that Americans are the "strongest tribe", meaning they are willing to fight and have staying power. Additionally, the brutality that Al Qaeda displayed in the Anbar, partially due to the America's pressure on them, became too much for even the ardent Sunnis to bear. They don't like their sheiks killed and true believers tortured in a cavalier fashion. Also, the Americans finally understood how to deal with the tribal situation in Iraq in subtle ways. Thus America demonstrated its comparative advantages vs. Al Qaeda and won. This demonstrates that perseverance is what caused the success. The arming of the local sunnis happened AFTER the initial formation of the salvation councils, when the locals DEMANDED to be armed and credibly demonstrated that they could fight the more radical insurgents, especially the Islamic States of Iraq, otherwise known as Al Qaeda in Iraq. If you don't know the facts, Brent's story sounds entirely plausible.
Given the tremendous upsurge of the local support, Brent's supposition that success in Iraq is directly tied to the immediate reconciliation at the top is utterly wrong. Just because the success is being achieved only partially in a planned fashion, DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED TO CHOSE TO LOSE. The reduction in sectarian killings and the staying power of Americans is leading people to lose their fear, as demonstrated by the tips they provide. I was a way last week, and read the US military press releases of the caches and insurgent groups pointed out by the locals on Monday and IT WAS OVERWHELMING compared with the prior situation. In other words the country is getting stabilized BUT SLOWLY. Things can't be solved by next Friday as Levin demands.
Brent's claim that redeployment will help in the fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and the interdiction of arms coming into Iraq from Syria and Iran is one of the most ludicrous suppositions I have EVER read, anywhere. If you read the military press reports, you can't escape the conclusion that successes in these areas are almost entirely intelligence driven. As it's called in the military circles, we have gotten inside their decision loop. Once you remove the forces from the local level, good bye intelligence (who wants to risk their lives to contact distant Americans when Al Qaeda or the JAMs can kill you any moment).
I'm out of time to discuss the economic reconstruction teams and the multitude of other good things going on in Iraq, but let me just say the following.
Brent's advice is a prescription for disaster. America needs to stay, work on the local level, pressure the government to change and WIN. Losing Iraq will lead to a morally defeated military that WILL NOT WIN ANY WARS FOR A GENERATION, in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Any interpretation of history is not destiny. A Turkish empire with the history of centuries of violent war-like behavior was transformed by one man into a pseudo-democracy that lasted until now. Nothing is forever, but we need to, and we can, win this fight. Chose to win, chose the light and not the darkness of the Siren songs of the left.
And to see what it's all about read this story. If it doesn't bring tears to your eyes, nothing will.
Citizen sacrifices life to thwart suicide bomber
Multi-National Division – Center PAO
FORWARD OPERATING BASE HAMMER, Iraq – An Iraqi man saved the lives of four U.S. Soldiers and eight civilians when he intercepted a suicide bomber during a Concerned Citizens meeting in the town of al-Arafia Aug. 18.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13454&Itemid=128
Comment by Igor R. — August 22, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
TO: BRENT BUDOWSKY
My book "THE REVELATIONS OF GEORGE W. BUSH" is due out around Sept. 20th.
It's the weapon the American people need to force this spineless Congress to impeach.
If you provide mailing address, I'll send you a copy when it comes out.
P.S.This is the only way I could find to contact you.
Comment by Volga Shi — August 22, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
My book "THE REVELATIONS OF GEORGE W. BUSH" is due out around Sept. 20th.
It's the weapon the American people need to force this spineless Congress to impeach.
If you provide address, I'd be honored to send you a copy when it comes out.
Thank you for the good work that you do.
Comment by Volga Shi — August 22, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
BB writes:
"Petraeus is a good man and great military thinker with a record in Iraq that was so failed and flawed that only in the George Bush era would such a record be deified, and only with such incoherence from the Democratic national security establishment and such insiderism and
laziness from the major media could such a deification of past failures be accepted."
So, I'm struggling here, how is it that such a "great military thinker" erred so badly in Iraq?
Comment by Bill Dunn — August 22, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
This is from an embedded free-lance reporter in Iraq, out on patrol with the US forces. A couple of paragraphs I extracted illustrates exactly how the mentality works on the ground, yet the Democrats refuse to see the truth. Read and understand.
“When you came and liberated this country,” he continued, “Iraq had 25 million Saddams. America is turning us back into human beings. That soccer field is not for a specific person. It is for everybody. We appreciate that. We believe that if Americans have something that is ours, they will return it to us. If the Iraqi government has something that is ours, we forget it.”
Our host for the evening nodded in agreement.
“We support you,” the man continued. “You support our back, we support your back. But you must understand: If you pull back, we will pull back. I will have no choice but to pull back if I can’t depend on you. It will be much harder for us to stand together. But as long as you stand firmly behind us we will support you against Moqtada al Sadr and the other bastards in the area.”
“Are they Sunnis?” I said to Lieutenant Pitts. Moqtada al Sadr leads the radical Shia Mahdi Army militia.
“No,” he said. “They are Shias. But they don’t like any of the idiot groups, regardless of sect. They want peace.”
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001506.html
Comment by Igor R. — August 22, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
Armchair commanders are never at the battle front. And with good reason.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — August 22, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Igor R. needs to remember that this war is illegal and immoral, and is making America less safe. His rosy predictions are simply not the opinions of those doing the fighting. And here's one American digusted by the wholesale slaughter of Iraqis by US troops.
Comment by Lord Garth — August 22, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
There was a huge anti war march, Bobbie, but the mainstream media is controlled by the right wing and didn't report it.
Only alternative news informs the electorate, or we would be totally at the mercy of the spin doctors.
Comment by Gary Anderson — August 22, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
The best piece I've read on this war and the lies and propaganda of Bush. Why is it that those of us that opposed the war from before it started have been proved right at every turn? If democrats in congress think Bush is going to let them win in 2008 then they are forgeting the elections of 2000 and 2004.
Comment by L.G — August 22, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
As a victim/veteran of the Nixon-Kissinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-1972) I agree for the most part with your analysis, Mr. Budowski. You have accurately described the plight of the Cheney-Bush Buy Time Brigade and identified the culpable perpetrators responsible for marooning our disintegrating foreign legion in the desultory doldrums of a desert disaster.
Still, given the wooden-headed paralysis that has gripped America's so-called "foreign policy ellte" — once again as it did thirty-five years ago in Southeast Asia — only an unmitigated American military humiliation will solve the problem for both Iraq and America. Uncontrollable events have gotten into the driver's seat of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. America has no problem-solvers any longer occupying positions of competence or authority in the American government. Welcome to Lord of the Flies time in bloodly, dying color. Michael Brown and other Republican Party campaign hacks, from Sheriff Dick and Deputy Dubya on down — have made the term "American Government" as oxymoronic as "military intelligence."
Reinforcing the madness: the so-called "Democratic Party" suffers from lingering Stockholm Syndrome. They've grown so pathetically attached to their Republican abusers that they now don't know what on earth to do except beg them for more sadism. The sadistic Republicans only too willingly and cynically oblige.
The two Democratic Party leading ladies, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator You-Know-Her from New York, look less like "leaders" and more like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland. They apparently get up every morning and practice believing six of the latest impossible Republican Party canrds about Democrats before they even have their taxpayer-subsidized breakfasts.
America's "unprovoked and dastardly attack" (to use FDR's famous phrase) on Iraq will end badly because it began that way. (At least the Japanese waited until dawn before attacking Pearl Harbor.) All consquences flow from the beginning of this "stealthy shock and awe" evil — not from any timely concluding of it by responsible and humane persons. The unconscionable American War on Iraq will end far worse for America than did its shameful and inglorious War on Vietnam. Most likely we'll see a reprise of Dunkirk, Stalingrad, or Dien Bien Phu — or some even more awful combination of the three. Absent anything even remotely resembling intelligence, competence, or courage in America's capital, uncaring and uncontrollable events will usher in and attend the immanent collapse of the shortest-lived "empire" ever to self-destruct so stupidly. From the Best and the Brightest to the Worst and the Dullest in only one generation.
Comment by Michael Murry — August 22, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Lord Garth, I've talked enought about the supposedly illegal and immoral nature of this war in the past, so I won't repeat myself. But your unqualified statement about "wholesale slaughter of Iraqis by US troops" shows your deep hatred for the most civilized fighting force on Earth that's not using nearly enough violence to defeat a vicious enemy.
Comment by Igor R. — August 23, 2007 @ 1:54 am
The most professional estimate of the death toll of Iraqis since the illegal US invasion that is attributable to the war at this point is 1,018,263. Up to July 2006 estmate, 41% of all those deaths were women and children. That does not include the maimed, the homeless or the starving. It does not include those dying of diseases such as cancers that they cannot get treatment for. In 2003, this was a nation of 25 million people. In comparison, the population estimate for California in 2006 is over 36 million. My point is that our soldiers and marines are in a civil war from house to house in towns and cities not really knowing who the "enemy" is most of the time. The result is a continually rising death toll of "collateral damage." There already IS a bloodbath. What is the Bush administration's objective? What does "winning" look like? It has never been described. What do we get if we "win"? Al Qaeda is there because we are there. Thirty year oil contracts for Exxon and a couple of other multi-nationals to monopolize the oil flow so that they can raise the price of oil? Strategic airfields to control what?
Comment by Pat Williams — August 23, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
"America needs to stay, work on the local level, pressure the government to change and WIN. Losing Iraq will lead to a morally defeated military that WILL NOT WIN ANY WARS FOR A GENERATION, in Afghanistan or elsewhere."
Fourteen years after the US withdrew from Vietnam, the Berlin Wall came down, and two years later, the Soviet bloc came apart, largely because the US engaged in no significant conflict. The US has won no war since 1945; it settled for a truce in Korea, it withdrew from Vietnam, and rested content with the withdraw of Iraqi troops from Kuwait in Gulf War I.
The US hubris from 1945-1975 damaged US goals. Had Reagan not been opposed by Congress in the 1980s, it would have postponed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The ascension of militarist cults in determining national policy, with the indexing national health to a let's-pretend armed 'victory', is always an indicator of terminal national decline.
Comment by John R. — August 24, 2007 @ 4:14 am
Pat, the 1 million estimate is outrageous, more credible (non-Lancet) estimates are around 100K. Regardless of the number, who killed that supposed million? The US Military probably had no more that a couple of thousand in "collateral damage" and a small number of tens of thousands of the enemy fighters so it would have to be the terrorists. But you chose to blame the US.
That "what would winning look like" question is obviously the oldest one in the left-wing arsenal on this topic. It would look like Kurdistan, you like that? More generally, it would look like a government overtly friendly to the US that is able to maintain control.
You speak in the typical "progressive" way of the rising death toll, without acknowledging any of the progress of the surge, because you WANT to lose. You want humiliation for Bush, so you refuse to face inconvenient truth. Wanting your country to lose is being a traitor.
Comment by Igor R. — August 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
John, you're playing a mental trick. I didn't say that if US withdraws it will be destined to diplomatic failures for a generation. At the moment the US is engaged in a broad war with Islamic extremism, and it's not a war of its (US) choosing. It needs to be able to fight and win this war, because Islamists don't understand or abide by diplomacy.
Comment by Igor R. — August 24, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
Igor and Rosencrans, I've warned both you neocons against the use of illicit substances. It is obvious you both failed to heed my advice.
Comment by Lester — August 25, 2007 @ 1:38 am
Face it, democrats are a bunch of cowards. You'll have a better chance of ending this war by supporting an anti Iraq War Republican than you will waiting on the political jackazzes in Congress.
Comment by bob — September 1, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
[...] Brent Budowsky created an interesting post today on Many Democrats Wrong on Iraq, AgainHere's a short outline [...]
Pingback by Democrats @ 2008 Presidential Election » Many Democrats Wrong on Iraq, Again — November 5, 2007 @ 5:29 pm