Richard Carter is live blogging on Responsible Plan (4.00 / 2)

right now at dailykos.  He's a candidate in NE-02.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:08:57 AM UTC

Democratization (0.00 / 0)

If victory is democracy in Iraq, then what is "victory" in China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Turkmenistan, Sierra Leone and so on. I am constantly amazed at how the American public will accept the democratization of Iraq as a justification for war, while ignoring the many other non-democracies that are our trading partners and allies. Not to mention the various non-democracies that repress their people more, commit greater atrocities, suffer from greater poverty, are greater threats to global stability and posses more dangerous weapons than Iraq ever did.

While journalists should rightly get the blame for the popularization of this doublespeak, I also think the American public is at fault. Most people do not fully recognize the role the US plays on the world stage, and they do not understand the common motivations for our foreign policy. If they did, any utterance of the 'democratization of Iraq' would be mocked and dismissed, not trumpeted as proof of our great American ideals.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:18:20 AM UTC

Sierra Leone (0.00 / 0)

Sierra Leone is, by many measures, a democracy. Woops.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:23:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

democracy was a smokescreen (0.00 / 0)

Democracy was never a victory condition. Democracy was a smokescreen; the real goal was to install a laissez-faire corporatist system that would validate the neocons' economic ideology.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:42:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely (0.00 / 0)

But, it is trumpeted as a justification now, and swallowed hook, line and sinker.

It's actually funny to think back the FIRST 'reason' we went to war - WMDs. A couple years later North Korea tested their first nuke. I only wish most Americans had caught that irony.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:58:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That Fantsty (0.00 / 0)

ended long ago. At this point Iraq is all about what is the aftermath when we do leave. Increased chaos and increased genocide and more refugees are the real issues in a humanitarian sense that must be considered. On top of that is the effect on world oil prices which could drive ours and other world economies down even further.

And before I see people respond that Iraq is not producing significant amounts of oil to affect oil prices I suggest they consider the mass oil reserves in Iraq and the fact of peak oil in the world. I'd also suggest they do their homework and see that in fact an unstable Iraq and the uncertainty of those oil reserves would in fact raise oil prices. Those facts are easily found in the top financial publications. Further I would suggest that they read The Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq and see that even it does not call for immediate withdrawal because the authors know that the issues I mentioned above are real and significant.

After reading this blog for some time now I have yet to see Chris or Matt address the aftermath of Iraq and what would be a 'Responsible' exit. Is more genocide OK? Rising oil prices? Why are these issues refused to be discussed on the Left?

The Responsible Plan calls for economic assistance in rebuilding Iraq. How is that going to happen if we withdraw in mass and leave behind chaos? The Responsible Plan calls for participation of world diplomacy which will take a long time. How is that going to happen if we withdraw in mass and leave behind chaos?

No the topic that should be discussed here is not what is 'Winning' or 'Victory'. It is how to leave without leaving something behind that will cause the further loss of Iraqi lives and to not leave behind a situation that would upset world economies in a Peak Oil world. That is a 'Responsible" discussion.

To frame this discussion in terms of 'Winning' or 'victory' is to frame it in a long dead 2003 manner. It's 2008 and the ground has shifted and today's real concerns are much different now. We need to think forward and not 5 years ago. That is just reality.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 16:16:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't see how you avoid chaos (0.00 / 0)

More genocide is unlikely. Much of Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed, so there are now only Shia neighbourhoods or Sunni neighbourhoods, which are essentially walled off from one another. There aren't enough areas of inter-sect contact for it to happen on a large scale, and even if we withdraw then we should still be able to keep a close enough eye on them to step in, whereas we've never shown any sign that we're able to stop the killings in ones and twos.

Oil price rises are likely, but frankly they're going to occur anyway. Iraqi oil production is down far enough now that interruptions in the supply there will be much less influential than rising Chinese demand.

But the chaos when we leave? I just don't see any way of avoiding that. There are at least five major players in Iraq: SCIRI, al-Sadr's supporters, the Sunni linked to the Awakening, the Sunni linked to the insurgency and the Kurds (who can arguably be divided into supporters of the PUK and the KDP.) So there is competition for mastery in at least two of Iraq's three major groupings and there's competition between the groupings themselves for dominance. And that's without the myriad smaller groups exponentially increasing the madness.

There is simply no way to remove most of these groups, nor is it really possible to meld them together. The best we can hope for is a Northern Alliance type confederation, which will make a mockery of democracy and central government, all the while running their areas of interest as kleptocratic fiefs.

Certainly, we should try to negotiate a fair division of power before we pull out and we should try to keep the violence between the different groups as close to zero as possible, but stability just doesn't seem like a reasonable option right now.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 16:31:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More genocide is unlikely? (0.00 / 0)

And your source for that statement? Wall maybe? And who put up those walls? We did. And who keeps those walls up? We do. We leave too soon and those walls would come tumbling down. If yo think the battle for land and neighborhoods in Iraq, including the supposedly peaceful areas of the Kurds is over you are dreaming. I suggest you do more reading on the subject.

On oil you miss the point that a disruption in any Iraqi oil production plus the removal of their reserves from the market are only going to make prices go up even further than they would if those events didn't happen. In other words yes oil prices will continue to rise because of Peak oil and demand. But demand has a twin component called supply. And any further disruptions in that supply are only going to exacerbate the price increases caused by demand. That you don't grasp the Economics 101 concept of Supply and Demand is surprising.

To argue that our leaving would have no effect on the chaos our is just wrong. The authors of the Responsible Plan know that and so would you if you read it. That is why they call it a 'Responsible' Plan. They have no intention of pulling out right away but yet that is how the blogs are painting it. Read it and see for yourself. Further to say our leaving would have no effect on the chaos is to say that our troops are ineffective. Everyone knows to say such a thing is false. As much as all of us were against the surge we just cannot say that the violence was not reduced and the walls that we built and maintain to reduce the genocide have not been effective to a point. Sure there are the issues that the surge was supposed to allow breathing room for that did not happen. But the reality is that as a result of the surge less life was lost - both Iraqi and American. That is something that many on the Left find hard to admit but to not admit it is to deny reality and if you deny reality then your point of view is flawed. That is just common sense.

I really think it is time for the Left to get real on Iraq. I think it is time for the blogs to write about ALL the Responsible Plan has to say and to quit sugar coating it as if it is the Magic Pony that is going to get us out of Iraq soon. It isn't and it isn't intended to. And the politicians that are presenting it that way are just pulling the wool over the eyes of the people who are too lazy to read the plan. The plan is a long term plan with many components that is going to take years not months to accomplish. And without a military presence it would never be accomplished. The idea is to not leave behind a mess - which is where the term 'Responsible' comes from in the title Responsible Plan as opposed to Irresponsible Plan.

If anyone one here thinks that either Clinton or Obama are going to pull out in mass and leave behind increase chaos and and further genocide they are just not thinking. Not only would doing that be devastating to Iraq, us, and the world - it would be devastating to the Democratic Party because in pulling out there is little doubt that the world outcry would force us to go back in. Obama is going to put himself in that position. Neither will Clinton. Neither is McCain.

The bottom line is that Bush left us all the biggest pile of shit any new President could ever be stuck with. And stuck with it we are.

---

by: Super Delegate @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 17:07:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what can we learn from all this. (0.00 / 0)

As much as leaving post haste from the Iraqi quagmire seems attractive, it is many ways the equic=valent of stomping out, slamming the door and holding your breath till your face turns blue. So what is a confirmed lefty to take away from all this. I think that just leaving will bring unremitting chaos which will cause the world to look at us as even bigger babies than they do presently. The oil situation will worsen etc.

I think the responsible thing to do is to remind people again and again how we got to this point and more importantly who got us there. The responsibility needs to be tied like an anchor around the necks of people like McCain and even more importantly the Clintons, Kerrys and Bidens et al who did not take the political risk at the time that it mattered. Am I calling for a purge of these feckless politicos ? You bet I am. And as painful as that may be it is far better than going through this type of mess again and again.

Dan

---

by: Daninsf @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 18:33:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quit being patronising (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for that attempt to constructively misconstrue my arguments. I really feel it added a lot to the discussion.

However,
a) It's much harder to crush a geographically concentrated Sunni/Shia area than it is to wipe out scattered communities of Sunni/Shia. On the flipside, if such communities are taken over, the consequences are much worse, but that's why I think we need to maintain an overwatch role.

The battle for land is not over, especially on the border of the Kurdish areas, but no group really has enough of a population surplus to try and go into the heartland of another group, wipe out the inhabitants and settle their own supporters. The bulk of the inter-communal fighting will be based around Baghdad and the Mosul environs. The rest will likely carry on at a low level that we have not in the past been able to prevent and will not be able to in future.

And yeah, I made it quite clear that the Kurds are not a happy unified people. Either tell me what is missing from my analysis and where I should find it, or at least get good at ad hominem.

b) I know how supply and demand works. I'm merely suggesting that Iraqi supply is fairly small as a proportion of the global supply and that high demand will push costs up whatever happens. It's also my understanding that most of Iraq's oil production is in the far south and in the west, two areas which for reasons of population distribution are unlikely to see inter-commnal violence (although intra-communal violence remains problematic).

c) Our troops are ineffective in as much as Baghdad was ethnically cleansed under their noses, in as much as much of the Iraqi middle class has fled and in as much as what remains of government administration is the fief of the various sectarian factions.

They tried their best, but military force alone cannot rebuild a country and the political side of the equation has been poorly mismanaged. Don't frame this as a support the troops issue. The problem is that we're relying on troops to solve an issue that they don't have the manpower for and would struggle to accomplish even if they had. They're soldiers, not state-builders.

Also, the surge did not work. There are large amounts of evidence that those targetted by it merely shifted their operations elsewhere and began to stock up, knowing that there are not the numbers of US troops to continue the surge forever.

I'm also not necessarily calling for an immediate withdrawal. But continued military presence is ameliorative at best. It's a sticking plaster on a gunwound to the head. Not enough, and possibly blocking our view of what needs to be done to rescue the situation as much as possible.

d) I don't speak as a particular supporter of the Reasonable Plan. It's better than current practice, but it has multiple Magic Pony elements, such as the call for international peacekeepers - that's just not going to happen and Iraqis would be unlikely to welcome Saudis or Turks any more than Americans.

e) You're being unrealistic if you think any plan can clear up the mess. The occupation has seen the disintegration of Iraqi society and sectarian division on a scale that would have been unthinkable a decade ago. You want realism, here's realism: Iraq is a mess and it will continue to become a mess whatever we do. Our aim has to be to try to prevent it getting worse and if possible lay the groundwork for it getting better.

Accomplishing that isn't going to be easy, but withdrawals and drawdowns of troops are a necessity. US troops are keeping the lid on some problems, but by the same token there are also some problems that their presence makes worse. Yes, overnight withdrawal is a pipe dream, but significant withdrawals of troops, with the groundwork established to go back in if necessary to prevent genocide and with negotiations with the local powers to try to prevent all out war, are our best route out of this mess.

That said, I will be surprised and satisfied if there is not an Iraqi civil war on an epic scale within five years. You may think that's pessimistic, but to my mind trying to prevent that and if it does happen to retard its growth has got to be our primary aim. Transforming Iraq back into a functional state is the light at the end of a very very long tunnel. And realistic discussion of this is certainly something I'd like to see on the blogs.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 18:38:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN (0.00 / 0)

It is how to leave without leaving something behind that will cause the further loss of Iraqi lives

This will be impossible to achieve.  No matter what we do, more Iraqi lives will be lost.

---

by: piniella @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:30:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Russia (0.00 / 0)

Oh, and don't forget Russia. Probably even less democratic than China these days.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:46:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

victory is a free and stable Iraq (0.00 / 0)

"Winning" is a free and stable Iraq. Some people are hoping for the added bonus of Iraq being an American ally and a base for future military operations.

Is our national prize for "winning" the Iraq war a free and stable Iraq? Really? That's what we have to gain from all this? That is why we severely damaged our economy, our reputation in the world, why 5% of all Iraqis are dead and another 16% are refugees, and why over 5,000 Americas are dead? There aren't many Americans who think that this is worth that. When CBS and CNN polled that exact question in March, only 29% and 36% of the country thought the costs of the war were worth the results so far.

Why is it so hard to believe this? Yes, the goal is not a particularly ambitious one. Yes, most people don't even think it's worth fighting for. That's where we're at. That's why there's so much pressure on Washington to withdraw, and that's one of the reasons why we're going to win big in November.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:36:11 AM UTC

for many people, our "prize" is being able to beat the shit (0.00 / 0)

out of another Arab country for what "they" did to us on 9/11.  Seriously, I think that's why Bush went to war with Iraq.  Beating the shit out of Afghanistan wasn't enough.  The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is a fact that Republicans doesn't seem to be able to understand.  Shias, Sunnis, Iraqis, Saudis, whatever.

---

by: bennytoothpick @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:02:05 AM UTC

Reasons (0.00 / 0)

That may be a reason many Americans supported (and still support) the war, and it is a reason the war was able to be executed in the first place, but it certainly wasn't the reason Bush and Co chose to invade.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:54:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reinforcing the false frame... (4.00 / 3)

Even when you're talking about 'winning' the Iraq war to mock the concept, you're still reinforcing the frame that there is something out there to 'win,' or at least that we are 'losers' if we leave.

George Lakoff wrote in 2006 about the proper frame for our presence in Iraq: It's an occupation, not a war:

It is time to tell an inconvenient truth about Iraq: it is an occupation, not a war. In wars, armies fight to dominate land. The US won the war three years ago when Bush said, "Mission Accomplished". Then the occupation started, and our troops were not trained or equipped for an occupation under predictably hostile circumstances.

Finally getting the courage to tell the truth that the US is an occupying force drastically changes the picture in Iraq. You cannot "win" an occupation. "Cut and run" does not apply to an occupation. Occupiers have to leave; the only question is when and how. Progressive Democrats agree that it should be soon; they only disagree on details. Political courage is called for. Truth now!

This is why when I'm being mindful about my communication I always switch out the word war and replace it with occupation. As Lakoff concludes, an occupation frame brings rise to many worthy new questions:

In an occupation, not a war, should the president still have war powers? How, if at all, is the Supreme Court decision on military tribunals at Guantanamo affected if we are in an occupation, not a war? What high-handed actions by the President, if any, are ruled out if we are no longer at war?

---

by: johnalive @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:28:22 AM UTC

What is our "national interest"? (0.00 / 0)

EVERY time someone defends the war in Iraq, the phrase "national interest" is used. But the "national interest" is never defined. I defy anyone to show how the Iraq war is in the national interest without using those two little words: oi il. Democracy can't be the reason because there are so many other places that are not democratic. Israel isn't threatened by Iraq. Until the people on the tee vee delve one layer deeper into "national interest", we the war supporters get a free pass.  

---

by: toby @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:28:56 AM UTC

One Layer Deeper (0.00 / 0)

That is asking waaaaaay to much!

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:54:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll play devil's advocate (0.00 / 0)

I defy anyone to show how the Iraq war is in the national interest without using those two little words: oi il.

Sure, I'll bite:

• Regional concerns. Withdrawing before Iraq is stable could destabilize the region and cause a regional war; increase Iran's power; etc.
  
• Terrorism. Leaving now would leave the possibility of Al Qaeda establishing a permanent stronghold in Iraq.
  
• Deterrence. Leaving without "winning" would embolden other rogue nations to carry on whatever they're doing (e.g. develop nuclear arms, etc.).
  
• Democracy. Gotta start somewhere.
  

These are all legitimate concerns that politicians and ordinary Americans are worried about. It behooves us to accept their existence, and refute them.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:15:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

point by point (0.00 / 0)

Iran is Shia - AQ? hello, Sunni. If Iran's power in the region were to solidify, granted, this would suck, and bigtime, for us, but it would not give AQ any more of a foothold in Iraq than it has right now...you are making the McCain "gaffe" - no soup for you.
Iranians live, currently, in a democracy, just like the Philistines, so when YOU use the word "democracy" what, exactly, are you talking about?
"Rouge" nations...? ...implies some kind of standard...what is your standard for nations? (oh, where to start, where to start...)

---

by: blognog @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:25:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

you missed my point entirely (0.00 / 0)

The goal is to convince the American people, not to convince me. I've been against the war since the beginning.

You're going to have to do better than "you're making the McCain gaffe" and throwing questions back at me if you're hoping to change people's minds. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually like McCain.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:50:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Refutations (0.00 / 0)

1. Iran's power has already increased as a result of the war. Since it appears to be the only entity that can bring Dawa and SCIRI on the one hand and al-Sadr on the other hand to the table, it's more important in the region than we are already.

There's also the issue that Iran has enough internal problems as it is, and if we stop pushing them into a siege mentality they'll probably become less of a threat and the hardliners will suffer electoral losses due to economic mismanagement.

As to the war, there's bound to be some kind of civil war once we leave (regional war seems unlikely, with the exception of Turkish incursions into Kurdistan - other nations will just back their proxies a little more openly than they do now). But the only way to stop that would be to disarm all the militias (including the Iraqi police and army) which is just not feasible. We can certainly perform an overwatch function there, intervening if it's necessary to prevent atrocities, and the chance of large-scale genocide is slightly reduced as Baghdad has lost its multi-faith neighbourhoods and Shia in the north or Sunni in the south have disappeared.

So yeah, withdrawal will be bloody and unpleasant for Iraq, but preventing that is impossible and it's not like Iraq isn't already bloody and unpleasant.

Framing the above to sound a little less callous might be an idea, however. I'll leave someone more empathetic than me to try to work out how to do that.

2. Al Qaeda in Iraq is much less of a force now than it was in 2006. It's my understanding that it's only really powerful in Mosul and it's slipping even there. Its foreign fighters lack contacts and don't fit in, so even when it was a factor, it was often purely a front for another militant group to carry out attacks that would have hurt the group's reputation.

They're the Sunni insurgency's resident loonies and they're not likely to be forming a government any time soon.

That's not to say that the 1920 Brigades or the various elements of the Awakening are nice people - they also seem to be a bunch of unpleasantly bloodthirsty and anti-modernist theocrats - but AQ itself is not the problem.

3. What is winning? Let's be honest, we won the war and lost the peace by every realistic metric. And the incentive to develop nukes is very much there already - we haven't indulged in much sabre-rattling towards North Korea recently, now have we?

4. Iraq is not helping democracy. The few bits of pluralism that there were under Hussein have been squashed. The rights of women and minorities have been curbed, power is based more on guns than on results at the ballot box (which international observers have not rated as free and fair anyway) and the education system, which is crucial to a viable democracy, is non-functional.

If we want democracy in the Middle East, we cannot impose it with airstrikes and tanks. And we have to accept it will have Islamic and anti-American elements. We have to abandon the current model and impose a new one. Here are a few suggestions:

a. Start encouraging the Saudi government not to be such colossaldicks (although possibly not in those exact words). Use a bit of soft power to retard the careers of the more conservative members of the younger generation in the House of Saud and to push forward the more liberal ones. Refuse to allow Prince Bandar into America ever again. Interfere with major arms deals. Make pointed remarks about democracy whenever there's an official visit. Try to exert some influence on the religious hierarchy on the sly. Take a similar tack with Egypt and Jordan and browbeat the Gulf States into democratising and also into treating their Indian immigrants like citizens rather than slaves.
b. Don't treat political Islam as a threat. Cultivate parties like the AKP, perhaps even more moderate elements of  the Muslim Brotherhood (and get Egypt to stop torturing their members, which doesn't help). It may even be worth reaching out to Hezbollah and Hamas - we may be fundamentally opposed to their policies, but we're never going to encourage democracy if we refuse to accept elections when guys we don't like win.
c. Start looking outside the Middle East more. Push for Musharraf to be impeached. Put pressure on Burma - the Chinese won't like that, but that's their problem - they can still consider Burma within their sphere of influence, it just shouldn't be governed by a crackpot military dictatorship. Establish a rapid reaction force to help put down coups. Put something unpleasant in Alexander Lukashenko's vodka. Lower tariffs for third world nations with favourable democratic records - fair trade and democracy make great partners, and strong African trading partners are going to need to develop a viable tax base and to shed their kleptocrats. Practice, rather than talk about, an ethical foreign policy.

Obviously, some of these ideas may not be ready for the mainstream yet, but almost all of them would do more to promote real democracies than our continued presence in Iraq does.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 16:12:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And do something about refugees (0.00 / 0)

The generally mentioned number has been 4 million, and lately I've been seeing 5 million. About a million of these are minorities (Christians and others) who'll have targets on their backs for at least a generation. Most of the refugees are in Syria and Jordan, which can't afford the generosity they've offered, and probably sooner rather than later refugees will be expelled into a bloodbath.

So for the mess we've made of their lives we've admitted a measly few thousand into the U.S. as refugees. We can do a lot better. The refugee service NGOs largely shut down 5 years or so ago because of lack of refugees, but the infrastructure of church congregations and other volunteers who provide welcomes, housing, jobs, coaching, etc., is still available.  

---

by: Joyful Alternative @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 21:34:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with everything you said. (0.00 / 0)

Nice analysis. I would just throw in, that regarding Al Qaeda, the real concern is that the real Al Qaeda (not Al Qaeda in Iraq) would set up shop in Iraq once the American troops lead. The fact that Al Qaeda doesn't have a major presence in the country right now is largely irrelevant.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:46:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No evidence it can fight a civil war (0.00 / 0)

Al Qaeda is a terrorist network. It can't advertise its presence and its reliance on local affiliates would appear to be sign that it doesn't possess much in the way of infrastructure.

These facts, combined with the not unimportant matter that its expertise lies in targetting westerners, make me doubtful that it'll be able to establish an independent powerbase in Iraq. It's obviously not a possibility that should be ignored, but on the other hand so much of its 2001 leadership is dead or imprisoned that the experts in terrorism are much more likely to belong to other militant groups, whereas Al Qaeda loosely claims those who are starting out (which is probably part of the reason so many 'Al Qaeda' plots are foiled - inexperience on the part of the bombers).

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:35:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

too optimistic? (0.00 / 0)

Sorry I can't provide citations for this, but I think most terrorism experts would object strongly to what you just said.

Al Qaeda established bases in the Sudan and in Afghanistan. The "movement" is as strong as ever. I think there's no doubt that, unless something is done about it, they will regroup.

Besides, you're undercutting the crucial argument that the Iraq war has helped Al Qaeda rather than hurt it.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

---

by: nstrauss @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 15:25:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Terrorists vs. Al Qaeda (0.00 / 0)

The Iraq war has helped terrorists and extremists. There's less evidence that it's helped Al Qaeda, although to be honest that's partly because there's no clear definition of what Al Qaeda is.

Al Qaeda's had a presence in Sudan and Afghanistan for many years, so I'm not sure when you mean by established, but they never really controlled those countries. They established training camps, they indoctrinated arriving jihadis into their particular movement and they occasionally acted as shock troops for the Taliban.

But they're essentially a terror network (and more so since 9/11, since other roles are harder to maintain when you're persona non grata everywhere) and terror networks can only carry out terror attacks, they can't govern.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 18:18:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right now "winning" is not "losing" (0.00 / 0)

We are losing now, and so the Republicans want to stay until we are not losing however long that takes, but certainly past the election.

We are losing because people continue to die virtually every hour, we cannot get Oil out of Iraq, Iran has more influence than we do, and no one who looks at Iraq can argue that we did the right thing.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.

---

by: MC @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:04:34 AM UTC

plan? what plan? (0.00 / 0)

um, there's no plan here.

a diagram is not a plan.

the details are a bitch, huh? follow the links? no plan, there.

*i like "occupation" not "war"...that's good, i'm going to use that...

b-nog

---

by: blognog @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:13:48 AM UTC

Click the top link in Matt's post (0.00 / 0)

Go down to the bottom of the page. Hit "Read How." Download the document. Read it.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:36:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

right... (0.00 / 0)

not. a. plan. that's a diagram...

---

by: blognog @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 13:48:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seriously? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure we're reading the same thing. I had to switch the setting for my PDF reader to "continuous" to be able to see all 30 pages, but it seems fairly detailed. And it certainly isn't just a diagram, as there is lots of text...


I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 18:16:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

duh... (4.00 / 1)

thanks, Sam...got it.

---

by: blognog @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 19:59:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What We Will Win in Iraq (4.00 / 1)

A bowling trophy!

I've been following the news and that's about the only conclusion I can reach. That's why we shouldn't elect Obama, the man can't bowl. We need Jesus Quintana!

---

by: schwag @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 13:44:20 PM UTC

He's a pervert, Dude (0.00 / 0)

When he moved to Hollywood he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a pederast.

With this in mind, I think he might have difficulty carrying California.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 16:19:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Benchmarks" R.I.P. (0.00 / 0)

Benchmarks seem to have dropped entirely from the current Iraq war lexicon. Good riddance since they seemed to engender more dispute than agreement.  I am surprised how quickly they seem to have disappeared.  It will be interesting to hear how airtime Petraeus  gives to benchmarks in his upcoming testimony.

The question of what comprises the prize of winning in Iraq resurrects a long-time question, "How do we know when we've won the 'war' on terrorism?"  (At least, that's the question I was asking years ago!)  Given that the original WH rationale for invading Iraq was the action was part of the larger GWOT, it's very fair game to use the standard of "Are we safer from terrorism?" as a measure.

Inevitably, Republicans would answer,  "Of course, we haven't had another domestic attack."  A smart rebuttal to that singular assertion would consider several things:

* Assess whether invading Iraq could have been a factor in prevented a second 9/11 attack.

* Measure the activity level and organization of terrorists today vis a vis March 2003.

* Assess the state of support for terrorism today vis a vis March 2003.

* Assess the opportunity costs of invading Iraq vis a vis having been able to focus Iraq war resources into non-Iraq anti-terrorist endeavors since March 2003.

The last topic alone can have many, many dimensions, and could refocus the discussion into the ongoing opportunity costs of remaining in Iraq.

---

by: sawgrass @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 16:06:51 PM UTC