quote:I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.
...
There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs.
I think it's a shame that it took some major losses for Rush to finally admit that he's been lying for years to support a partisan agenda that more closely -- but hardly perfectly -- aligned with his own ideological agenda. I just wish more pundits would be willing to come forward and admit this.
(Of course, he continues by saying "I'm not lying." But THAT's the lie.)
Rush tries to defend this stance by saying that he believes the Republican Party is better for America, and therefore small evils committed to perpetuate that party are better than the big evils that might be committed by the other party. But that's the same logic that says American democracy is better for the world than any other system, and therefore small evils committed to advance American-style democracy are inherently justified.
My own argument is this: no one team is inherently better than any other team, and while certain ideologies may be better, it's important not to confuse the ideology with the team itself. For example: if what makes American democracy great is our respect for life, freedom, and individual choice, Americans should not attempt to spread American democracy through actions that restrict these things, even if they believe that their "team" will eventually redress the problem; if what makes conservatism great is sensible policy founded on a respect for personal responsibility, conservatives shouldn't try to advance their "team" by pandering to voters with big-government programs.
It's the conservatism that's important, not the party that presumably represents that ideology -- especially since, as that party abandons that ideology to increase its own strength, the logic behind supporting that party in the first place becomes more and more obviously flawed.
It's an obvious and dangerous trap, especially in a complicated world full of multi-layered issues; it's very comforting to join a team and work to support that team with the hope that they'll ultimately advance your actual ideology. But teams will ALWAYS sell out ideology if they're given a chance.
quote:I love how conservatives are all for letting the opinions of terrorists guide our foreign policy.
Oh, man, that's funny. I always wondered how the opponents of the war could go on thinking the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror, when the terrorists seemed perfectly willing to show up and fight for their side.
I never dreamed was that the answer was that they thought there was an independent reality, exclusive from the perceptions of the Administration and the terrorists.
Thanks for the clarification.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps opponents of the war noticed there were extremely few terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, and that the number in existence there and worldwide has been steadily increasing after we invaded, and that one common terrorist recruiting device is to talk about our invasion of Iraq? Have you noticed that, yet?
(Perpetual disclaimer: I was and in hindsight am for an invasion of Iraq. I was not and am not in hindsight for the incompetent bungling of an invasion we have been carrying out).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Al Qaeda certainly wasn't in Iraq because they didn't get along with Saddam.
I think Iraq is certainly the lightning rod now.
Bungling? It certainly appears that way. My brother says that he knows a soldier who served there who was equiped and protected worse than the paid Iraqis. And a Marine friend of mine says that it has drawn on too long. Many of the "kids" there have known nothing but there. That is why soldier start making huge mistakes.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If being praised by Limbaugh doesn't wake OSC up, nothing will.
Hahaha. Yeah, does anyone know what OSC's response is?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My own argument is this: no one team is inherently better than any other team, and while certain ideologies may be better, it's important not to confuse the ideology with the team itself. For example: if what makes American democracy great is our respect for life, freedom, and individual choice, Americans should not attempt to spread American democracy through actions that restrict these things, even if they believe that their "team" will eventually redress the problem; if what makes conservatism great is sensible policy founded on a respect for personal responsibility, conservatives shouldn't try to advance their "team" by pandering to voters with big-government programs.
Well said, Tom.
Although as conservatives go, I'm more appalled by "We believe in personal responsibility, now let's get laws on the books that outlaw the things we find immoral."
Patrick Murphy (incoming House member, Iraqi war veteran) was on NPR tonight, noting that as we could legitimately say our stated mission in invading Iraq had been completed (Saddam ousted, WMDs found non-existant), withdrawl ought to be considered a perfectly legitimate option.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:PENTAGON insider Kenneth Adelman told The New Yorker magazine that resigning US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in "deep, deep denial" about the status of the war in Iraq. "I suggested that we were losing the war," Mr Adelman, a long-time friend of Mr Rumsfeld, told The New Yorker in an interview posted online yesterday.
"What was astonishing to me was the number of Iraqi professional people who were leaving the country," Mr Adelman said.
"People were voting with their feet, and I said that it looked like we needed a Plan B I said: 'What's the alternative? Because what we're doing now is just losing'."
He said Mr Rumsfeld did not take the assessment well.
"He was in deep denial -- deep, deep denial. And then he did a strange thing. He did 15 or 20 minutes of posing questions to himself, and then answering them.
"He made the statement that we can only lose the war in America, that we can't lose it in Iraq.
"And I tried to interrupt this interrogatory soliloquy to say, 'Yes, we are actually losing the war in Iraq'. He got upset and cut me off.
"He said, 'Excuse me', and went right on with it."
A short time before the congressional elections, Mr Rumsfeld told Mr Adelman his office would be seeking a replacement for him on the Defence Policy Board, a group of lobbyists, defence experts and former politicians who advise the secretary on strategy and management issues.
Here's where one can begin to isolate the specific argumentative weaknesses of OSC's article.
He claims: the Democrats must not gain power, because it is only through the Republicans that we stand a chance of winning.
The primary issue working against this view is that the Republican hegemony allowed for a clearly deficient plan to continue unabated. A lot of people seem to have bypassed or re-imagined the real dichotomy of war strategy: Republicans wanted to stay the course; Democrats said largely that we needed a change of approach. The first Republican strategy was to ignore the advice and frame their opposition as being 'cut and run.' As time progressed and the situation got grisly, they finally co-opted the Democratic advice. You want to know what the Republican strategy emerged as, a few months ago? Yeah, that's right -- the same one that the Democrats had largely been proposing for years, during which the administration broke their credibility while continuing to paint rosy colors over the cascading quagmire.
Yet they co-opted it reactively, and only in response to election threats, not operational ones. Lousy way to run a war. He says that the issue is 'withdraw on a timetable' Democrats to doom the war, without realizing (or applyng) the fact that this is what the Republicans had already turned into.
Appropriately, no less. Timelines do allow us to cut our losses if the situation becomes unsalvageable, but this is a negligible factor -- compare to the issue that more importantly, they allow us to gauge progress and order our goals in the way that a one-party town was unable to self-regulate. You can ask yourself 'Where should we be at this juncture?' and 'Why are we not there yet?'
There's other issues, of course. He frames the 'war in iraq' as being interpreted in a war 'on' iraq. He glosses over the Iraq condition as 'lukewarm.' And when he talks about the ascendancy of Islamic 'puritanism,' there's no regard for the role of international anti-western opprobrium in generating the fanaticism which we must fight. There's a false dichotomy which reaches to compare our current occupations with our WWII occupations. There's Reducto Ad BinLadenum.
But really, the main issue is that it frames the conflict as being troubled only because we would ever waver in our commitment to it, without wanting to give account to the fact that the war can and did grow weak even while we still supported it.
When the warmakers are inept, you have to force them to change course. If a war's resolution is in doubt, you cannot move forward without ever taking into consideration the possibility of loss. To do so can leave you somewhere pretty much exactly where we are today! Besides, any war conducted by a free republic must be conducted with the support of the people; barring the removal of the democratic process altogether, you're losing a war you can't sell. This election's referendum on the war resulted in people ignoring OSC's entirely and voting for change. He'd like to say that it's the death knell of Iraq, where -- if anything -- it's too little, too late.
The piece got the attention it deserved, though. The most telling commentary of the piece is to look at what kinds of people loved it. It ran like wildfire through the shrills of the far-right world. It has praise lavished on it by the pundits who -- like Rumsfeld -- are too busy furiously cognitively dissonating about the reality of the war to have any reasonable measure of the real issues we face; they're just happy to nod furiously at anyone who would like to pin it all on the Democrats.
Why, if Bean Counter were still here, he'd just tear up reading the thing ;_;
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
OSC: We will only win this war if we stay committed to it.
Samp: Actually, staying committed to it isn't working. We ought to try wavering.
Here's the thing about timetables: They work wonderfully, as long as they're not public. The second the enemy knows, "Ah, great, we've just got to wear them down until x date," then they've got that grain of hope.
Not only do the dates have to be secret, the existance of the timetable has to be secret. Because even if they don't know the date, knowing a date exists emboldens the terrorists and allows them to persist.
We can't give terrorists even that sliver of hope.
Here's why what the terrorists think matters so much:
In a normal war, victory comes when you destroy your enemy's ability to make war. You destroy their planes, you blow up their supply trails, and you all around gut their war-making capabilities.
However, in a war like this, when terrorists are able to use airplanes or household chemicals or semi trucks to wage thier war, destroying the mechanisms of war becomes nearly impossible.
So instead, in this war, we have to try to do the opposite--we have to convince the terrorists, and convince anybody who might be tempted to follow the terrorists, of two things:
1. That trying to fight the US through terror is futile, so they should stop trying.
2. That the US actually has valuable things to offer their societies, so it's not worth fighting them anyways.
The Republicans have been trying to do 1. They've been trying to undermine the terrorists' hope that terrorism is an effective means of getting their way in the world.
What the Left could have been doing, what should have obviously been their role all along, was helping us remember that we also needed to do 2. The Democrats, the party of the "little guy" should have been looking out for the "little guys" in Iraq and Afghanistan, looking to establish the programs that would have given food and shelter to the Iraqi and Afghan people. The types of generous programs that would have helped the rank-and-file people of those countries see that this war was not with Islam, was not with the fine people of thier countries, but was instead with the hateful people who had brought war to their countries.
In other words, when the terrorists offered them weapons, and we offered them bread, they would choose the bread.
However, the Left did not take this option. They did not look to see what the ideals of their party dictated they do in this situation. Instead, they engaged in the same type of partisan, disingenuous activities that Limaugh is being dispariged for.
Instead of trying to make sure the nation fully addressed 2, they attacked 1. And since 1 was half of the vital combination neccesary to win, this put them in opposition to our victory in the war.
I'm not questioning their patriotism. They love America, and, like Rush, they felt that getting themselves back in power was the best thing to help the country.
I will argue, though, that they have let the small victories get in the way of their deep seated ideas and principles. They've been so blinded by partisanship that they've withheld what they could have offered, and that's hurt the war on terror tremendously.
I agree that this is the problem, but claiming that it's isolated to ideolouges like Limbaugh is naive. Americans have allowed their politics to cloud our jugdements. Both sides of the aisle have come to feel that the only good that will ever happen in the country will come from their party.
And so any action is justified so long as it gets "our guy" in so some good can be done. They want so badly for their side to "win" that they've allowed "winning" to become their only ideal.
But now, here we are faced with a real issue, the issue of international terrorists who want to make the fight domestic.
OSC called the essay, "The only election issue that matters." We're tempted to say, "Oh, but what about judges? What about this? What about that?"
He clairfies it quickly--five to ten years from now, this will be the issue that was decided in this election that will matter deeply to us. We won't be so affected by whether the minimum wage went up or stayed the same, or anything else that people shouted about. We'll care whether terror is closer to us or further away.
In other words, if any issue should have allowed us to put partisanship aside, it is this one.
OSC's argument is not for Bush's competency. It is simply an argument for Bush's willingness. Few on either side of the aisle have demonstrated what Bush has--a willingness to make this his priority, not because it will win him elections or popularity contests, but because he knows it's what needs to be done. He, as the commander in chief, with the most intimate knowledge of the terrorists and of where this war could leave, has chosen to sacrifice any popularity, any shot at being the "Uniter" he sought to be when he was first elected, in the name of doing what he felt was right for the American people.
What everyone needs to ask themselves is this: Had the roles been flipped--had Bush been backing down in Iraq, succuming to the public pressures, and had the Democrats been sounding their oppositsion to his movements towards withdrawl, arguing for the safety of the American people, how would your vote have gone? Are you really standing behind principles and ideologies, or are you simply fighting for your side, no matter what?
In the Alvin Maker series, the difference between "Making" and "Unmaking" is made clearer than I think I've ever seen it.
Flinging shots at one party or the other, accusing this person of absolute incompetence and stupidity or that person of being unpatriotic or siding with the terrorists--that's unmaking. That's useless. It tears down and leaves nothing left, including hope.
Aknowleding the contributions of others, while suggesting improvements, passionately working for the ideals you uphold, all the while aknowldging the noble intentions of even the most misguided attempts to build--that's making.
I despair at the American dialogue ever being at this level again.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So to get back to the point I originally intended to make--
There is a difference between being committed to victory and being committed to strategy.
In fact, I'd say they're almost independent of each other.
A commitment to victory means that we're there for the right reasons, fighting for a just cause, and that winning there would be good.
A commitment to strategy means that we're doing the right things, and that we're doing them in the right way.
We shouldn't confuse the two.
We should decide whether or not to fight the war based on the reasons for being committed to victory. Are were there for the right reasons? Is this going to accomplish what we want it to accomplish?
We should decide how to fight the war based on what we see is getting results and what isn't, what has worked before, what we think might work.
To allow our commmitment to victory to be decided by how well we're getting results will always lead us to prematurely abandon noble causes when they're hard and relently persue less-than-noble causes simply because they're achievable.
We need to have the courage to press forward when our cause is right and to back down when we decide what we're doing is wrong, no matter how well or poorly things are really going.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Timetables is a bit of a misnomer, I think. I think most reasonable people (which is a group that includes conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike) definitely want a "goaltable", a set of goals, clearly delineated, pragmatically and concretely defined, and granular enough that they can be addressed separately. No more hand-waving about "training Iraqi security forces", or "establishing a government" or "rebuilding infrastructure". Regardless of how you feel, this administration has lost any benefit of the doubt in this regard. They need to tell us the who, what, when, where, and how about these things. And by when, I mean, what pre-requisite tasks are required to begin/finish a given goal.
-Bok
EDIT: People complain about the Democrats not having "a plan" for Iraq, but honestly, can anyone give a reasonably detailed outline of the current plan? "Staying the course" or "reacting to conditions on the ground" is meaningless, and should scare the entire citizenry if it is the actual limit of our plans (not that I believe it is this bad). That's half the Democrats' conundrum right there. How can they come up with anything comprehensive without the administration saying they do so (whether or not it is true because they took the good idea from the Democrats), or to what extent they are following anything the Democrats publish (1 regiment doing what the Democratic plan said 10 regiments ought to be doing).
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Has Rush done Mormon-bashing?
Rush was fired once by KMBZ in Kansas City that was owned by Bonneville Communications (which is owned by the LDS church). Although not engaging in "Mormon bashing" per se, he did have some negative things to say about that decision and referenced the Church in particular. But that was YEARS ago that I heard those comments, and can't find anything to document it other than my own memory.
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not only do the dates have to be secret, the existance of the timetable has to be secret. Because even if they don't know the date, knowing a date exists emboldens the terrorists and allows them to persist.
We can't give terrorists even that sliver of hope.
This proposal cannot stand, because a free republic has to sell the war to the people.
Barring the removal of elections entirely, any U.S. war that results in election-year reprisals by people who are frustrated with the war is weak and shows it openly to the terr'ists. I don't care how ignorant you want the citizens to be; they still grow disaffected with a war that goes nowhere. This is why "Stay the Course" failed!
quote:I saw it like this:
OSC: We will only win this war if we stay committed to it.
Samp: Actually, staying committed to it isn't working. We ought to try wavering.
You leave me doubting if you even read my position, but I'll go on record saying that I think you've got it completely wrong!
But in the event you come across a person who actually states "I think commitment is a terrible strategy for war and I want to try wavering. This is actually my proposal for winning Iraq." it would work pretty well against them.
For me, though, you may want to re-analyze my position so that you aren't attacking positions that I don't actually hold!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We should decide whether or not to fight the war based on the reasons for being committed to victory. Are were there for the right reasons? Is this going to accomplish what we want it to accomplish?
We should decide how to fight the war based on what we see is getting results and what isn't, what has worked before, what we think might work.
As an aside, I'm going to note that "Is this going to accomplish what we want it to accomplish" is as much a 'commitment to strategy' as it is a 'commitment to victory.' Your dichotomy is pretty strained.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I take issue with what seems to be a common theme among Republican pro-Iraq supporters. That is the idea that "stay the course" basically means "outlast the terrorists."
If you recognize the fact that the US isn't up for another Vietnam, then you must realize that the resident opposers of a force that is increasingly being views as an occupying force are going to "win." Winning is setting up a stable democracy in Iraq, a government that can give orders and have them followed, and a rather well trained security force to stand with.
It isn't our job to spend the next 20 years policing the streets of Baghdad for them, that's their job. Truth is, we AREN'T going to outlast them, so we should stop making that our mantra for victory. You set up a rather large curve towards defeat, which makes anyone who suggests anything other than staying there forever sound treasonous. It's a fun argumentative and oratory technique, but it's far from honest.
And also, the Democratic argument has long been for BENCHMARKS, which are not timetables. And now you see Republicans calling for BENCHMARKS, while claiming they just came up with it, as if they hadn't co-opted a long held Democratic idea.
The idea that if we don't set timetables and just threaten to stay there forever suggests two things: 1. That this will seriously dissuade insurgents from continuing action against us. 2. That the insurgents are ineffective against us. 3. That both sides are ignorant of the history of the other.
1 & 3 are tied together. How many decades have Arabs been fighting for what they want in Palestine? Fifty years? More? And those people aren't even relatively well taken care of. Thinking that we'll spend any less time in Iraq is short sighted. So if you aren't ready to spend the next 50 years drinking sand, think again.
2. They know what they are doing, and they know that it is working. Furthermore, they know what happened in Vietnam, they reference it all the time. I think this goes back to the foundations of the Iraq war. Bush never should have started a war on false pretenses, knowing the public would never support it long term. Insurgents are effective in killing people, which they know will get them free air time in the media, which effects American public opinion, which will in the long term kill the war. They aren't stupid, they aren't ineffective.
3. They know we'll leave eventually. They KNOW it. They are RIGHT. All they have to do is outlast us, and they have a LONG memory. They are here to stay, because they think it is their duty to stay there and fight us to the death, not to the year, not to the decade, as long as it takes. OUR resolve isn't the same, and really, why should it be? Leaving Iraq doesn't change all that much, or at least it didn't before Bush let the threat there balloon immensely since the start of the war.
The real war we're losing is the media war, the image war. The more we are percieved the way our enemies portray us, the more ground they will take in the minds of the people we're trying to win over. Bush and the Republicans are LOSING that war, horribly. Democrats taking back Congress on an anti-war wave isn't harming the war effort. Osama Bin Laden himself was widely reported to have said that he wanted Bush to win reelection in 2004, because his policies were getting him millions in donations and thousands of recruits. The argument goes both ways.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
