The Coalition of the Very Small

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Two major errors, Strick: Democrats are not against a strong national security and it’s dishonest to suggest that they are. And this is where the anger is coming from: the Republican posturing that disagreement = treason, that once troops are committed you can’t question the policy, yada yada yada yada. And the stupidity of President Bush with respect to Iraq has actually made it more difficult to commit military forces in the future; both allies abroad and a lot of folks at home are feeling “burned” by this experience because of the arrogance of this administration. At some point, even some of Bush’s supporters are going to figure out that there is going to be nothing but a bunch of bad end states for Iraq and that the cost we’ll have paid to achieve any of them is ridiculous. There are no more artificial “corners to be turned.” The U.S. hasn’t just shot itself in the foot, it’s machine-gunned itself in the foot.</p>

<p>Democrats are not campaigning against <em>them</em>. Hackett is involved in an intramural dust up and there are bruised feelings, conspiracy theories, leaks (whether true or not). If you look at the BoB candidates receiving active support from the DCCC and take the temperature of activists on the subject by cruising through the Democratic blogosphere, you’d realize what a silly statement that is.</p>

42

<p>So tell me: what is the desired “Democratic” outcome for Iraq? Sistani or Sistani? Control of oil resources or control of oil resources? A U.S. military beachhead in the Middle East, or a U.S. military beachhead in the Middle East? Bring the troops home after there is some stability established or bring the troops home after there is some stability established?</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t believe I ever said they were against a strong national security. </p>

<p>If asked I would have to say they’re for many things that weaken it and against many things that make it stronger. It’s not one of their priorities at best and at worst they distain so much of what is necessary for it.</p>

<p>But they’re not directly, specifically against it.</p>

<p>Here’s my point. How can the people so actively trying to prevent military recruiters from going to their children’s high school campuses even consider letting someone who actually served, not just served but went to that illegal war, ever be a significant player in their party? The hard left that’s most motivated to contribute large sums of money just won’t let it happen.</p>

<p>Heck, there’s an internal war in the party between the ordinary left and the extreme left. These guys won’t have a chance. Even if this “Band of Brothers” manages to win some seats, their reward will be to be marginalized and kept as far from any real participation in power as possible.</p>

44

<p>The Democrats are a bunch of losers not because they aren’t “strong on national security” but because they aren’t “strong in the head” - they are totally clueless as to where they stand on realpolitik.</p>

<p>It won’t make much difference if a few members of the Band of White Bros (BWB) get elected; they are as clueless as the rest of the Dems.</p>

45

<p>It was interesting to see a prominent conservative intellectual recently accept the reality in Iraq and that he was wrong to support Bush and the neocons on the Iraq War. </p>

<hr>

<p>Before the war here is Francis Fu k uyama:</p>

<p>“It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”. </p>

<p>Now we have this:</p>

<p>"As we approach the third anniversary of the onset of the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention itself or the ideas animating it kindly. By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadist terrorists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at. "</p>

<p>davidcorn.com</p>

46

<p>“It won’t make much difference if a few members of the Band of White Bros (BWB) get elected; they are as clueless as the rest of the Dems.”</p>

<p>So Mini, what’s a voter to do if that is the case? What’s your opinion on what should be done with Iraq? I know you don’t like either party… whom do you support?</p>

<p>I am asking not to challenge but because I’m curious.</p>

47

<p>Mini, I share many if not all of your critique of the Dems including their pathetic attempts to play to the canard that they aren’t strong on defense. Murtha, at least did speak strongly against the war, though not out of any principled opposition to imperialistic control as he advocates relocating the Iraqi troops to the UAE. His response to Cheney with his five deferments to shut up was at least the way to go.</p>

<p>However, your Band of White Brothers thing is silly unless you can show some sort of exclusion of African American or Hispanic veterans.</p>

<p>As far as making a difference, it might help get us out of Iraq, which is an important project for NOW. It is important for the Iraqis and the kids who have no connection to cc. This is true even if somehow credits the Band of Brothers, most of whom have not have the guts to follow the majority of Democrats, who have opposed the war for almost the entire runup and course of the war.</p>

48

<p>I think you first of all have to ask what “right” does the U.S. (and U.S. corporations) have to control the supply of Middle East oil? How far does that “right” extend, and what do you think the role of the U.S. government should be to defend it?</p>

<p>Then, if you answer in the affirmative that the U.S. does have a “right” to it, how far do you wish to go to defend it? Where do you put the military bases? What level of force are you prepared to use? And against whom?</p>

<p>These were the two core questions that only Paul Wolfowitz, probably the smartest (and most ruthless) guy who has served in the current Administration, presumed to ask any critic who came his way.</p>

<p>Then, once you’ve answered those two questions, you have to ask “what is your level of commitment to democracy?” Do you support “democracy” when the result you receive from democratic elections in Iran or Palestine (or Egypt or Syria) are not to your liking? What happens when “democracy” threatens the flow of oil? Threatens U.S. military bases? etc. What level of military force are you willing to use to defend undemocratic states like the UAE or Saudi Arabia (or the Shah of Iran) against the will of their own people?</p>

<p>And then, once you’ve finished with those, and have a real headache, you need to consider whether Israel is the 51st state (though which much more in the way of aid than most states are likely to receive), or whether support of Israel at current levels threaten the flow of oil, or results in democratic elections that make you very nervous.</p>

<p>The Republicans, and specifically the “oil-hawk Republicans” have been much, much better at articulating these questions and answering in an understandable manner, and have, until recently, been able to sell them. The Al Gores of the world haven’t a clue.</p>

<p>What’s a voter to do? Do what you think best, choose the least bad alternative, or vote for your principles - if you live where I live, it doesn’t matter in either case.</p>

<p>“However, your Band of White Brothers thing is silly unless you can show some sort of exclusion of African American or Hispanic veterans.”</p>

<p>Excuse me, but do you think ANY of the BWB just discovered one day that they’d like to be Congressmen? You don’t think there was any recruitment, or that willingness to raise funds on their behalf had anything do do with the process? I call it as I see it.</p>

49

<p>So why did Wolfowitz bail out to the World Bank?</p>

50

<p>Job for life! (or at least a decade, which is a lifetime as far as politicos in their late 50s are concerned). And one with real power! If you really want to extract wealth from the rest of the world, it’s certainly the best place to be - and a BIG playpen to play in.)</p>

<p>He is a student of Leo Straus and the great Platonic lie, and that’s what keeps him ticking.</p>

51

<p>A big playpen, yes - but just a playpen. There are lots of jobs out there for a guy with Wolfowitz’s resume. I disagree with the World Bank job representing “real power” - unless he has some grandiose master plan to revamp it into a completely different institution than it’s been historically I’d expect someone like Wolfowitz to view it as actually being pretty marginal in terms of what he would consider to be effective power. Power is addictive and Wolfowitz doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy to quit cold turkey. Something going on there, I’d wager… I just don’t know what.</p>

52

<p>Well, I don’t know - an institution that (along with the IMF) extracts $500 billion from the Third World annually (in exchange for $50 billion in long-term debt forgiveness) makes him a really, really big player - for someone who has never run for public office (and never could - too unnervingly, and deadly, honest). He was never going to rise above, at best, some lowly undersecretary and, if/when the oil-hawks are on the outs, he’s toast (though he could go work for Halliburton.)</p>

<p>The thing is, Wolfie had already outworn his welcome among the Bushpeople. He told it like it was - the Iraq War had nothing to do with WMD, very little to do with democracy, and everything to do with control of oil reserves, and the need for permanent U.S. military bases outside of Saudi Arabia. No Democrat dare really challenge him directly because none had/has a politically acceptable alternative to same. But Wolfowitz’s truth was just too naked for the Bushies.</p>

53

<p>After the news of the last two days, all I can see are Sunni and Shiite factions playing a world class game of “got you last”, and American soldiers are caught in the middle. I simply don’t see how our presence is going to prevent their civil war and guarantee a government that the Bush administration approves of.</p>

54

<p>AFTR, watch the old Disney cartoon, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” the next time you ponder Iraq.</p>

55

<p>Concidering that we claimed we would be welcomed with open arms and the battle was over and that the elections are working and that we have allowed all kinds of people into Iraq, its a good thing we have leaders who admit errors…and can say “well, we O(<em>)%</em># that up pretty well”</p>

56

<p>“I simply don’t see how our presence is going to prevent their civil war and guarantee a government that the Bush administration approves of.”</p>

<p>Don’t see how it matters - our $2 trillion is going to net us Sistani in any
case. But I think the civil war will be over much more quickly if we leave within the next 30 days. Never happen, of course. No Democrat will come out and say it. Where’s Hilary?</p>

<p>What about Clinton?</p>

57

<p>Mini - you’re obviously a lot more up on this than I am - what was supposed to happen in Iraq? Or maybe what I mean is, if those stupid Democrats all went away for a while, what is the good thing that would happen if the oil hawks, as you call them, had their way??</p>

58

<p>If it had worked, according to Wolfowitz (he wrote – or was it an interview? – in Foreign Affairs, I think, in June 2003), was there would be string of permanently established military bases in Iraq. Their number one task would be to protect the oil fields and oil pipelines going through a semi-autonomous Kurdistan to the north, and to the Gulf in the south. The bases would be able to shore up any political/military weakness in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc. (It was implied that they could also respond quickly to “Iranian aggression” - I read that as far more sinister. And of course the defense of Israel, whatever that means.) The oil profits would be used to pay for the initial occupation, and the building of the bases, and then to prop up a relatively weak state apparatus. It was assumed that someone like Chalabi or Allawi, secularists in the pay of the CIA, would lead a government that could prevent civil war by offering just enough autonomy to make folks happy, but not enough autonomy that control of the oil pipelines could be jeopardized. There would be plenty of wealth to spread around. The Iraqis would be happy campers.</p>

<p>Semi-direct control of the Iraq spigot would give the U.S. long-term leverage in the international oil markets, which it lacks now. The bases in Iraq would sandwich Iran between large American-led coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. </p>

<p>Parts of this could still come true, and parts not (some of it, having to do with Chalabi/Allawi was simply a pipedream, but not in fact critical to the whole scheme.)</p>

<p>Rather than call the Democrats “stupid”, I’d call them “dumb”. They are unable to articulate an alternative vision - if we need Middle East oil, are we willing to fight for it? If so, how? If not, what’s the alternative? Are we prepared for the Muslim Brotherhood, elected democratically or not, in Egypt, Palestine (Hamas), Syria (which is now ruled by secularists), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, and Iran? Will we fight for Israel?</p>

<p>Clinton’s vision was of an Iraq defanged, as it were, through genocide. With a million dead already, half a million children, it wouldn’t take much more to eliminate a good part of an entire generation. Eventually, the Iraqi generals would rebel, and hand Iraq on a plate to the Americans, no muss, no fuss. World outcry in 1996-1997 made that impossible (and paved the way for Oil for Food). But at the end of all that, Saddam Hussein was still in power, there were no new U.S. military bases, and no clout for the U.S. in the international oil markets. Something HAD to be done.</p>

<p>Now? My crystal ball is probably as cracked as yours. I would imagine the perspective of the realists, both among the Bushpeople and Hilaryites, is basically the same. Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. The Ayatollah gets the country, in exchange for semi-autonomous Kurdistan, and some very basic human right guarantees for Sunnis (but a nod-and-a-wink to allow him to go “clean up” the Sunni/Al-Qaeda mess); a permanent U.S. military base or two or three in the desert. Some guarantees regarding the oil pipelines. Probably not any better than the U.S. could have had if troops were mostly withdrawn two years ago, and likely worse, as U.S. power and prestige (relative to the Ayatollah) are now much weaker than they were then.</p>

59

<p>Well, you’re right - at least it’s a coherent plan which, if it worked, would benefit the U.S. I have to say, however, that my B.S. meter gets awfully twitchy reading about permanent military bases guarding oil fields and pipelines in perpetuity. Somehow I don’t think that would have worked any better than whatever the current plan is supposed to be. Hubris?</p>

<p>Maybe the best alternative plan is to follow the same strategy that won the cold war…</p>

60

<p>Want some “realpolitik”? Civil war at this point is not necessarily a bad outcome for the U.S., provided the troops are pulled out immediately. Currently, many Iraqis see us as supporting the Sunnis, the old Baathists, and, in our criticism of the Shia, support for the - a-hem - terrorists. A real civil war means the Sunnis and Shias rip each others’ guts out, while the U.S. stands guard over Kurdistan. Not pretty of course. The alternative is to support the Ayatollah, good friend of Iran, as he puts together a government, and lots of Sunnis (‘good Sunnis and bad Sunnis’) get slaughtered. But I’m not sure to what extent the U.S. is a real player any more in terms of the ultimate outcome, even if we play a heavy role in “kingmaking” now. We always seem to think that we are the ones who control ultimate outcomes - but it wasn’t true in Iran, or Viet Nam, or Somalia, and it likely isn’t true in Iraq.</p>