A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq

[Corlyss_D]

January 08, 2007
A Bitter Clash is Coming Over Iraq
By Michael Barone

Cynics surely found the words of good will exchanged by the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the new House minority leader, John Boehner, at the opening session of the new Congress to be hypocritical and insincere. The two leaders are grizzled veteran pols, after all, who have not been known to be on close, much less candid, terms with each other over the years. But I know them both, and I believe they were speaking genuinely from the heart.

The passage of power from one political party to another is an awesome thing for anyone who knows much history, indeed for anyone who clicks his remote control onto cable news. It is not the norm in human history. And the swearing in of a 110th Congress -- 110th! -- is part of a living chain that links us to George Washington and to James Madison, who was sworn in as a member of the House in the First Congress, 218 years ago.

Which isn't to say that there isn't going to be some bitter conflict between the new Democratic Congress and George W. Bush in months ahead. That's not out of line with tradition, either: Madison was opposing Washington's major initiatives long before the First Congress adjourned. In that case, the conflict occurred over Alexander Hamilton's economic policies. In this case, the conflict seems likely to occur over what we should do next in Iraq.

Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have made it clear that they take the Democratic victory last November as a mandate for withdrawal from Iraq. That's a point you could argue with -- you could make a case from the polls that what voters want most of all is victory and success. But Pelosi and Reid and almost all of their Democratic colleagues are sincere in their view, which is at the least plausible.

George W. Bush, from all accounts, seems to take a different view. He evidently sees the November result as a verdict of dissatisfaction with unsuccess and lack of victory, and so is promising a "new way forward." He has been prompted by his party's "thumpin'" to change the way he manages.

Since the success of the major military operations in May 2003, he has delegated power to appointees he trusts and has mostly ratified their plans. Far from micromanaging the military, he and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seem to have approved pretty much everything that Centcom head Gen. John Abizaid and the rotating military commanders in Iraq have proposed. They seem not to have taken the advice of military historian Eliot Cohen in his book "Supreme Command" that wartime commanders in chief should constantly question, probe, prod and, yes, even overrule their generals, as Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben Gurion did.

Now it looks like Bush is doing something like that. Rumsfeld's resignation was announced the day after the election; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has been moved over to State; Abizaid's retirement has been announced; and Gen. George Casey, the on-the-ground commander in Iraq, is being moved out early. Bush is reported to be planning a "surge" of additional troops into Iraq to establish order in Baghdad and Anbar province. Clearly, the president is changing tactics and maybe even strategy.

Many Democrats are calling this "escalation" and are swearing they'll oppose it. For those who see Iraq through the prism of Vietnam, a surge is something like Richard Nixon's invasion of Cambodia, an intensification of a war that never seems likely to go away.

I have been of the view that the Democratic Congress would not use its legislative powers to bar an increase in troop levels, for fear they would be seen as not supporting the troops already there (and for fear they couldn't get majorities on the floor), and I still think that's unlikely. There's a danger in being seen as promoting an American defeat. But the left wing of the Democratic Party will be calling loudly for defunding the war, and as we saw last week, in a jarring episode during the festivities, Cindy Sheehan can outshout the Democratic leadership.

I think we're going to see a very loud and bitter clash, one that will contrast vividly with the graceful words of Pelosi and Boehner on opening day. One side wants American victory and success, though it cannot promise that they are certain; the other wants only exit, without regard to the consequences. The 110th Congress will be no more devoid of controversy and angry partisanship than the First.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... comin.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

People generally do not know that 40% of the people who voted for Gene McCarthy in 1968 wanted an increase in war effort. That insight into voter thinking of the time is usualy ignored in Boomers' self-congratulatory histories of how they brought down the Johnson government and the US war in Viet Nam.

[Werner]

It's significant that you chose to bold three items in this post. The second and third are straight-forward partisan patter, so often used in place of good sense by the powers that be.

The first bolded item, though, probably comes closer to the truth. I'm quite sure that a majority of voters favor victory and success. I'm quite sure that includes many who oppose the haplesss Bush regime. So much sadder that by their actions, these same people have subverted the chances of victory and success - a fact that no temporary"surge" of 20,000 troops can correct.

[Ted]

Werner Wrote:

I'm quite sure that a majority of voters favor victory and success.

If by “success” Werner you mean an Iraq that is free from civil/secular dysfunction, sure who wouldn’t be for that. But that is something that must come from within; it can’t be instilled or mandated by an occupying force which is what we are.
Victory is not ours to win.
Ironically if there is victory in Iraq it will be in spite of us and largely because we are no longer there.

[Corlyss_D]

It's significant that you chose to bold three items in this post. The second and third are straight-forward partisan patter, so often used in place of good sense by the powers that be.

Nonsense, Werner. You're blowin' partisan smoke. The third item is my contribution, distinguished by the carots separating the text from it. It happens to be a fact, one I didn't learn until last year so prevalent is the Boomer nonsense about how they brought down a government.

The first bolded item, though, probably comes closer to the truth. I'm quite sure that a majority of voters favor victory and success. I'm quite sure that includes many who oppose the haplesss Bush regime.

Yes, it's true that many who favor victory as opposed to panicked flight, the Democratic solution, voted for the Dems in this cycle. What most of them don't realize is the people they voted for are the lowest in seniority and have absolutely no say in what the party leaders determine. Silly little voters thought they were going to get the kind of change they wanted. What they got was these aging Boomers who constantly relive their youth by opposing a Republican presidennt in a war he has done little to make the case for. Unless the conservative Democrats in the freshman class make common cause with the Republicans, there's no hope that this country won't turn tail and run, leaving the middle east to Iran and Hezbollah.

[Febnyc]

Ted's post is right on.

I've come full circle on this issue - my vote for democrats - the first in many moons - was in the hope that they would effect a pullout of our troops. I don't want one more young man or woman lost in the vain attempt to "fix" Iraq or, for that matter, the entire lunatic region.

And I think this is what the electorate as a whole is seeking. I think that is why the country forced a shift in power in such an evident way.

No matter how long we "stay the course" it will not be enough to stabilize Iraq and certainly will not ensure a democratic government there. These people have been at each others throats since the seventh century. We're not gonna be able to force them to live with each other, peacefully, under a government which we've propped up with the lives of our youth.

And put the hundreds of billions of dollars we are throwing into that black hole to better use right here at home. (Wishful thinking )

[Barry]

I haven't come full-circle on Iraq because I was all over the map from the start and have never made up my mind firmly about whether deciding to invade was the right thing to do, or at this point, would have been the right thing to do if it had been better planned for (more troops, don't break up the Iraqi army, etc.).

But since the day our troops were on the ground, I've never wavered from the conviction that we don't have the luxury of saying we made a mistake; time to go home. Victory as it was defined at the time of the invasion may not be reachable any longer, but averting a massive long-term disaster still is. I agree with McCain and Lieberman on the troop surge. Do it if it's going to be significant and open-ended until the well-defined goal of the surge is achieved. Don't do it if it's going to be half-assed with an announcement that they'll only be there for a set period, thereby broadcasting that our enemies only have to wait us out. I've gone over the reasons why I think cutting and running would be a huge mistake many times, and have yet to see or read anything that has changed my mind on that. Yes, staying will be painful and coss more loss of life. But leaving now will lead to us being back there for an even tougher fight with even more loss of American life in the coming years. We don't have the luxury of quitting.

[Febnyc]

Barry - What, do you imagine, would be the "well-defined goal of the surge?" What, with the additional troops, regardless of how many, will be accomplished? And in what way will all this enable us to leave at some point in the future?

[Barry]

Frank,
The goal would be to substantially cut down the violence that's making it difficult for ordinary Iraqis in Baghdad and a few other places to live normal lives.
We've had a clear and hold strategy for a while. We're successful at periodically clearing out the trouble-makers, but we don't have the troops to hold, and as soon as we leave, they go back to what they were doing. Getting stability in Baghdad and making the government of Iraq the only legitimate user of force in the country is vital at this point. But it won't happen unless we send more troops AND change the rules of engagement. We need to really go after Sadr, the Sunni insurgents and and other such thugs that are making life miserable for ordinary Iraqis.

I know you don't think that's possible. I disagree, especially after watching McCain and Lieberman address the issue last week on C-Span. As I've said before, they'd make a great ticket for '08. Their leadership and spine is inspiring, to say the least.
What it basically comes down to, IMO, is that the consequences of staying in Iraq, with a new strategy and troop surge, while they would be serious, would not be as bad for our long-term national security interests as the consequences of withdrawing at this point. I spent weeks arguing what those consequences are and don't intend to do that again. But in short, ceding a region with a large portion of the world's energy to radicals, but it the Iranian mullahs, Al Queada or a combination thereof, is unacceptible. Further, a premature withdraw would send a strong message to both our enemies and allies (and perhaps equally important, our potential allies), that the United States can't be counted on to stand by its word and commitment. That may not look like much or seem like it's worth more American lives when you just see it as a simple sentence in print. But our credibility is vital to our interests and if we lose some of it, it WILL cost lives both in the near and long-term future; many lives, and eventually, American lives.

[Ted]

BZ Wrote:

But our credibility is vital to our interests and if we lose some of it, it WILL cost lives both in the near and long-term future; many lives, and eventually, American lives.

General Westmorland said the same thing one day while standing on the tarmac in Saigon—a big half smoked stogie protruding from his lips—You’re not smoking cigars now are ya Barry?

[Barry]

BZ Wrote:

But our credibility is vital to our interests and if we lose some of it, it WILL cost lives both in the near and long-term future; many lives, and eventually, American lives.

General Westmorland said the same thing one day while standing on the tarmac in Saigon—a big half smoked stogie protruding from his lips—You’re not smoking cigars now are ya Barry?

Not cigars, Ted.

And General Westmorland was right if he said that. Every time we show weakness, it emboldens others to take action that is contrary to our interests. When you're the power in the world, you can never afford to show weakness or a lack of credibility. You need to think beyond just Iraq. Everything we do has consequences. Cutting and running will lead to very bad consequences, much worse than seeing through a difficult situation with an improved strategy.

And yes, there were bad consequences when we left Vietnam too and there were good consequences as a result of sticking that out as long as we did. The power vacuum we left in that region led to hundreds of thousands of deaths (millions if you include Cambodia). Then there was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan following Carter's failure to take strong military action against Iran in '79. Remember Ted. Everyone really is watching us. They act according to how we act; just as was the case with the Romans, the Brits, you name the dominant world power throughout history. Think beyond Iraq. Credibility is everything in international power affairs. The next time we need assistance from a third world country on a vital matter, it will be less likely we'll get it if they can point to Iraq and say that we'll cut and run when the going gets tough.

Even if you're right that it was stupid to invade Iraq, that doesn't mean we should compound that mistake by making another one and damaging our credibility, as well as alienating our less radical allies in the region, none of whom want us to pull out under the current circumstances, thereby ceding the field to Iran and Al Queada.

[karlhenning]

It's significant that you chose to bold three items in this post. The second and third are straight-forward partisan patter, so often used in place of good sense by the powers that be.

M'yes. This does have the look of Corlyss living into the counterproductive partisan-shouting-match which is such a proven media blockbuster . . . trying to discredit the opposition by exaggerating the extreme (right or left).

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

Frank,
The goal would be to substantially cut down the violence that's making it difficult for ordinary Iraqis in Baghdad and a few other places to live normal lives.

Barry, how can we do that, when the violence has excalated to the alarming degree that it has, under our very watch?

What it basically comes down to, IMO, is that the consequences of staying in Iraq, with a new strategy and troop surge, while they would be serious, would not be as bad for our long-term national security interests as the consequences of withdrawing at this point. I spent weeks arguing what those consequences are and don't intend to do that again.

You don't need to.

But is the strategy new? Or is the same old dog-meat with a fresh sprig of parsley?

But in short, ceding a region with a large portion of the world's energy to radicals, but it the Iranian mullahs, Al Queada or a combination thereof, is unacceptible.

How exactly do we fail to do that, given the mess we've created in Iraq today? I understand the thinking "this is unacceptable"; but outside of fantasyland, Barry, how does this get prevented? Bush's administration has failed miserably in the very task that his party should have told him was a recipe for miserable failure: nation-building.

Creating a stable and credible Iraqi government hardly seems on the boards, Barry; so how exactly do we avoid what you so rightly describe as "the unacceptable"?

Further, a premature withdraw would send a strong message to both our enemies and allies (and perhaps equally important, our potential allies), that the United States can't be counted on to stand by its word and commitment.

No, I believe it reflects on the current administration rather than the US as a whole. Bush's arrogance and wilful blindness have made him, personally, a hissing and byword the world over -- and, it is not "un-American" to say, rightly so. But the US will survive this. The problem is actually where it is insisted that the US has to institutionalize Bush's disastrous policy and methodology.

Barry, you are trying to drape endorsement of Bush's insistence as eternally in America's interests, and I don't buy it.

Best,
~Karl

[Ted]

BZ Wrote:

Think beyond Iraq.

Okay…Let’s pretend we’re on Romper Room...I see Iran out there….Oh that’s right, you want us to Nuke Iran….And North Korea….. (Kim Jong-il is reportedly ready to test another nuclear device, what shall we do about that…..Why not nuke him as well….After all, the whole word is watching…..Let’s not forget about our biggest threat….Cuba….What shall we do about those scary Cubans? With all that sugar cane they could cause tremendous tooth decay for our children, let’s Nuke them too

[pizza]

Barry, you're wasting your time. You can make all the well-reasoned arguments you want and you'll continue to be met with more childish gibberish of the "let's nuke everyone in sight" variety. These guys still have their heads in the Vietnam cut-and-run syndrome and can't think beyond the moment. Romper room is mature by comparison.

[Ted]

Pizza Wrote:

Barry, you're wasting your time. You can make all the well-reasoned arguments you want and you'll continue to be met with more childish gibberish of the "let's nuke everyone in sight" variety.

"I don't want to nuke everybody Pizza, just my enemies"

[Barry]

But is the strategy new? Or is the same old dog-meat with a fresh sprig of parsley?

Karl,
Impossible to answer since it isn't being announced until tonight.

As I said in an earlier post, I'd only support a troop surge if it's accompanied by a change in the rules of engagement (which you could call a change in strategy). If we're going to continue to tie our troops' hands and not let them go after people like Sadr, then I would not support the surge. Either do it right or don't do it.

[pizza]

Pizza Wrote:

Barry, you're wasting your time. You can make all the well-reasoned arguments you want and you'll continue to be met with more childish gibberish of the "let's nuke everyone in sight" variety.

"I don't want to nuke everybody Pizza, just my enemies"

Sure, but we know all too well how the Left distinguishes between friends and enemies.

[Barry]

Barry, you're wasting your time. You can make all the well-reasoned arguments you want and you'll continue to be met with more childish gibberish of the "let's nuke everyone in sight" variety. These guys still have their heads in the Vietnam cut-and-run syndrome and can't think beyond the moment. Romper room is mature by comparison.

At least I didn't use any nasty language about liberals this time .

[Barry]

And so it comes back to the quote that used to be at the bottom of Corlyss' posts (can't remember who said it; or if it's a Corlyss original):

American politics comes down to the following: "Liberals think conservatives are evil and conservatives think liberals are stupid."

I'd probably change the word "stupid" to "naive."

[Ted]

Pizza Wrote:

Sure, but we know all too well how the Left distinguishes between friends and enemies.

Gee Pizza, without emoticons we’re in quite the quandary.
First of all I was being perfectly jocular and glib in my “Nuke ‘em” retorts to Barry
Secondly, “I don’t want to kill everybody, just my enemies” is a famous quote from “The Godfather”
And thirdly, the sad part is while I’m joking about nuking Iran, you are in complete earnest.
Go figure

[Corlyss_D]

given the mess we've created in Iraq today? I understand the thinking "this is unacceptable"; but outside of fantasyland, Barry, how does this get prevented? Bush's administration has failed miserably in the very task that his party should have told him was a recipe for miserable failure: nation-building.

This kind of thinking is so typical of the juvenile Left that never grew up politically and longs to see everything thru the prism of their activist youth. Members of congress who hail from that generation made Iraq as difficult as they possibly could for Bush, denied the administration support thru their slavish propaganda arms, WaPo and NYT, prided themselves on stopping the administration thru investigations, made their constant whining about Iraq their sole campaign platform, and then blame the administration for its lack of success. It's what as known as a self-fulfilling prophesy. Too bad the voters couldn't send a clearer message than the one the pitiful pacifists insist on deriving. It's contemptible.

[Ted]

CD Wrote:

This kind of thinking is so typical of the juvenile Left that never grew up

Hmmpgh! The keeper finally shows up. Do us all a favor and put down some fresh straw

[Barry]

Again, naive is a better word than juvenile. It's just a complete misunderstanding of basic human nature that leads them to favor policies based on their notion of how the world should be, rather than how it always has been. Unilaterally following policies based on a hope that human nature will change is basically national suicide in the long run.

[Ted]

following policies based on a hope that human nature will change is basically national suicide in the long run.

That’s the kind of attitude that will ensure your children will never be safer than you are….Nice legacy huh

[Barry]

following policies based on a hope that human nature will change is basically national suicide in the long run.

That’s the kind of attitude that will ensure your children will never be safer than you are….Nice legacy huh

Let's cut our hair for peace....no, let's get in a bag for peace....if we think it hard enough, it will happen.

Peace, Man.

[Ted]

Let's cut our hair for peace....no, let's get in a bag for peace....if we think it hard enough, it will happen.

Hey Barry, that’s not fair, I loathed people who wore peace symbols

[pizza]

following policies based on a hope that human nature will change is basically national suicide in the long run.

That’s the kind of attitude that will ensure your children will never be safer than you are….Nice legacy huh

Yeah. It ain't the bad guys who make the world unsafe. It's Barry's attitude.

[karlhenning]

This kind of thinking is so typical of the juvenile Left that never grew up politically and longs to see everything thru the prism of their activist youth.

"This . . . is so typical . . . ."

So is Fox "news" the cause or a symptom of this dumbing-the-discourse-by-misrepresenting-those-who-disagree-with-you?

And I suppose, Corlyss, you genuinely wonder why the President has the most severe credibility problem in a century of US history?

[karlhenning]

Yeah. It ain't the bad guys who make the world unsafe. It's Barry's attitude.

Though I don't completely agree with Barry, it is not Barry's attitude which is the problem, by any means.

[pizza]

Yeah. It ain't the bad guys who make the world unsafe. It's Barry's attitude.

Though I don't completely agree with Barry, it is not Barry's attitude which is the problem, by any means.

Ted thinks it is:


Barry wrote:
following policies based on a hope that human nature will change is basically national suicide in the long run.

Ted wrote:
That’s the kind of attitude that will ensure your children will never be safer than you are….Nice legacy huh

[Barry]

I can't say it better than Senator McCain did on the Power Line blog:

January 09, 2007

We have disagreed strongly with Senator John McCain on several issues, but have also applauded his unwavering support for a strong national defense and for vigorous prosecution of the global war on terror. When the Senator's staff requested an opportunity for Senator McCain to do a guest post on Iraq, we were delighted to turn the floor over to him. Senator McCain writes:

Debate in recent days has focused on the possibility of “surging” U.S. combat forces in Iraq. Security is the precondition for political progress and economic development, and we need more troops on the ground. But to make a real difference, any surge must be substantial and sustained.
During my recent trip to Iraq, commanders spoke of adding as many as five additional brigades in Baghdad, and one or two additional brigades in Anbar Province. This, I believe, is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels.

The mission of these troops would be to implement the thus-far-elusive “hold” element of the military’s “clear, hold, build” strategy: to maintain security in cleared areas, to protect the population, and to impose the government’s authority. Our troops would work in cooperation with Iraqi forces, and stay in place until the completion of their mission.

The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces. We have tried small surges in the past, and they have been ineffective because our commanders lacked the forces necessary to hold territory after it was cleared. A short surge would have all the drawbacks associated with greater deployments without giving our troops the time they need to be effective.

Increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq will expose more brave Americans to danger, and increase the number of American casualties. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional brigades is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed. Then they will shoulder their weapons, and do everything duty requires to win this war.

We have made many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed. But from everything I witnessed on my most recent visit, I believe that success is still possible. Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq. By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed. Our national security, and that of our friends and allies, compels us to make our best effort to prevail, and to do it now.

[Conservativemaestro]

I can't say it better than Senator McCain did on the Power Line blog:

During my recent trip to Iraq, commanders spoke of adding as many as five additional brigades in Baghdad, and one or two additional brigades in Anbar Province. This, I believe, is the minimum we should consider. It would be far better to have too many reinforcements in Iraq than to suffer, once again, the tragic results of insufficient force levels.

McCain is exactly correct on this. Furthermore the insurgent Sunnis are prepared to fight short battles, they do not have the military capabilities to do more than that however. By withdrawling right away they will see this and pretend to throw in the towel, but if and when the US troops were to leave too soon - at this point, the Sunnis would start one of the bloodiest civil wars with the Shiites ever. It is important the US has a presence there.