Tough (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, because it's so tough in today's hyper-violent international policy discourse to talk about pounding some foreign brown people. It requires a lot of guts, a lot of fighting spirit and a deep commitment to avoiding the wrath of Lieberman one's principles.

Blessed are the peacemakers, my foot. If that Jesus guy were alive today, man, the whole Democratic party establishment would have to totally call him on being a pansy. [/snark]

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 14:42:45 PM CDT

Thanks for starting this discussion (4.00 / 1)

This is a matter that has absorbed my thinking for a long time now. I believe there is a real chance that the Bush Administration may attack Iran before they leave office, and I think that the failure of most Democratic leaders to challenge either the rhetoric or fundemental assumptions that are driving the propaganda campaign for this war (beyond the now standard ill defined Democratic tag line "we should be willing to talk with the Iranians directly) makes the Democratic Party complicit - once again, in a neocon driven agenda to take our nation to war.

Some of you who are familiar with my writing know that I follow Wes Clark closely. I think he has been pointing to an effective way to deal with linking Iraq with Iran in a manner that strengthens the forces for peace rather than the forces for war. The unspoken strategic "thinking" (if I can use that word to describe it) that Bush still embraces in the Middle East is a total catastrophe which actively is spawning further disasters not limited just to Iraq. The approaching war with Iran is a very obvious example of this. The way it is going we are letting Bush get away with driving the agenda for public debate regarding that entire region by arguing almost exclusively about effectiveness or not of the current Iraq troop "surge.

Prior to the U.S. invading Iraq the comparison then to how Democrats now are refusing to challenge neocon "framing" on Iran might be Democrats not disputing with Bush whether Hussein posed a major strategic threat to the United States, not disputing with Bush whether Hussein was definately building nuclear weapons, not disputing with Bush whether Hussein was already being in bed with Al Quada, but just arguing with Bush about whether a decision to invade Iraq needed to be made that summer or whether it could wait until Spring or the Summer after to decide.

For the most part now Democrats are not exposing the ideologcal ineptness and danger posed by Bush's neocon dominated foreign policy. We keep the debate fixed only on how quickly troops can or can not be pulled out of Iraq.

In Clark's recent statement regarding Iraq he spelt out that Congress needed to start defunding the war if Bush could not produce a "winning strategy" for the region. Clark fully expects that Bush will not produce one, but it is essential that the misguided strategy that Bush continues to embrace be exposed to the public, and the only way to do that is to force Bush to try to defend his strategy. Then we can rip into it. The way it is Bush deflects criticism about what he is up to in the Middle East by diverting it into whether or not Democrats are willing to give our Generals the time they say they are asking for to make "the surge" work. Bush is off the hook that way, he spins it so that we are fighting with generals in Iraq, not with Bush Administration policies.

We are giving Bush a free ride on that and in my opinion the price we may end up paying for that stupidity is war with Iran. Clark is trying to force Bush to defend his current and future wars, it's his Administration that is still making the calls on all the big issues of war and peace in the region, and making them wrong. Democrats need to more powerfully challenge Bush on foreign policy. I will follow this post with something I wrote earlier that touches I think on this in more depth

---

by: Tom Rinaldo @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 14:50:40 PM CDT

I posted an earlier version of this here in my Diary (0.00 / 0)

This one is a little bit shorter and more focused, and I think it speaks directly to the issues raised in the OP. The title is an indirect reference to Wes Clark but I am speaking more about how the Democratic Party can and should frame National Security issues in the future:

Option "C" For Democrats

Labor Day is approaching and George Bush and Dick Cheney are now almost certainly the least popular President and Vice President team in American History. John McCain, the G.O.P. pretender to the thrown who once was feared as the only man with sufficient stature and integrity to convince the American public to renew the Republican lease on the White House, has departed center stage after a war vote malfunction stripped bare his passion for the Iraq surge, exposing him as unelectable in the Super Bowl of politics. So the Democrats, with a seemingly strong field of candidates, seem poised to win in 2008. Given the quagmire the G.O.P. now seems stuck in, it's hard to argue otherwise. Few Democrats do, it's easier to go with the giddy prevailing wisdom, but cracks that can fracture the veneer of Democratic complacency are hiding in plain sight, where many refuse to see.

The Democratic Party's Achilles Heel hasn't moved, it's still on its foot, which it continues to regularly insert in its collective mouth when it comes to National Security. Democrats still have not shaken their inferiority complex relative to Republicans on matters of security. If you doubt that look no further for evidence than the August 4th vote by 16 Democratic Senators and 41 Democratic House members to support Republican written legislation giving George Bush's near laughing stock of an Attorney General constitutionally unsupported authority to spy on the international telephone calls and e-mails of Americans, in the name of keeping America safe from terrorists.

Anyone who found that vote shocking simply has not been paying close enough attention to Democrats in Congress. Democrats may have found the courage to often unite against the Iraq War now that it is universally unpopular, but they still rattle sabers against Iran almost as well as the best Republican Chicken Hawks around. It is that knee jerk need to posture as tough as Republican that led a Democratic Senate to issue George Bush a blank check for war against Iraq in 2002. Very little has really changed.

No doubt most Democratic politicians truly embrace promoting Peace, a stance that they are quick to remind their Party's anti-war leaning activist base of. But then comes the overwhelming political urge to compensate for any expression of "softness" with hard edged rhetoric about protecting America from its enemies. Most elected Democrats believe they still have to prove to most American voters that they are tough enough to keep them safe. Why do they feel that need?

Partly it's sensible enough; Americans want to feel safe in a world that they believe poses real dangers to them. Democrats who ignore that sentiment do so at their own political risk when they run for national rather than state or local office. The Republican brand name is identified with National Security, the military, and a strong defense. The Democratic brand name isn't. So Republicans, perceiving a political advantage, do what they can to pump up the public fear factor. Today's National Republican Party has evolved into a political machine that runs well when it runs against a threat posed by enemies, domestic or foreign, but especially foreign. It hardly matters who their candidate is, they get brand name marketed, and too few voters really question what's actually inside that box.

Democrats running for national office (Congress included) know the dynamic well and must each settle on a personal approach for dealing with it. If blessed with a progressive constituency the task isn't daunting, but few actually are. It's a rare year when National Democrats can afford to openly down play security concerns. Democratic Presidential candidates during the Cold War never could, nor can they now post 9/11. The need for Democrats to answer to the public on security is not imaginary. To remain competitive in national elections they repeatedly turn to one of two deeply flawed options.

Option A is to essentially cede Republicans the National Security advantage, while trying to still beat them by outscoring the G.O.P. on issues that play better to Democratic strengths. No candidate would publicly admit to that, just like none would admit that they plan to virtually write off any region of the nation when it comes to allocating sufficient campaign resources at the beginning of a campaign, but it still happens.

Option B is a variant that depends on mimicking Republicans (Democrats doing this often are confused with a small group of hawkish Democratic who hold views on National Security virtually identical with most of today's National Republicans. That confusion is understandable since "option B" Democrats go out of their way to sow it). Most of the "sound tough" crowd I referred to above are "option B" Democrats. They use camouflage hoping to look and sound similar enough to Republicans on National Security to fudge any real distinctions, leaving domestic issue differences as the only ones that stand out when it comes time to vote.

Can National Democrats win using Options A or B? Yes, if they run a very skilled campaign, or if the tide of public opinion is already running strongly enough against the Republicans that year. But that skill and/or tide must be formidable, because the main stream media is not the Democrat's friend when it comes to National Security, as shown by the cheer leading and white washing function it played prior to the invasion of Iraq, and the similar role it plays with Iran now. Even when Democrats win with a candidate with sufficient skills backed by a strong tide as in 1992, something significant happens. We fail to ace the elections. We don't knock the G.O.P. out. We govern with dangerously thin majorities by courting on the votes of Congressional Democrats with a vested interest in sounding and acting like Republicans all too much of the time. And then we suffer setbacks like a Democratic Congress passing the FISA bill this month.

Our nation may be one major domestic terrorist attack away from ushering in a Rudy Giuliani presidency. Of course that attack may never come, no matter how often the Department of Homeland Security fiddles with the color codes or issues terror attack advisories, but then again it might. Lord knows Bush has been busy over the last six years increasing America's enemies and reducing America's friends. Then there's the matter of pending war with Iran which George Bush can initiate at any time by his own authority, since our Democratic Congress is loath to tie his hands in advance on that one. The Democratic Party has two main strategies for dealing with the Republican Party's current brand name advantage on National Security (granting a partial exception for the war in Iraq): focus energies elsewhere or essentially mimic Republicans. Neither is a winning strategy if new security concerns come to capture the public's attention in 2008.

General Wesley Clark offers Democrats a way out of the current rigged box; Option C. Become the political party that effectively promotes America's security. An answer so simple as to be audacious; stop side stepping the challenge and stop pretending to be something Democrats are not. Embrace the differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party on National Security and show the public that our way will keep them both safer and more prosperous; safer because America will have fewer enemies in the world, more prosperous because our treasury will not continually be drained by endless wars to the advantage of select war profiteers.

Changing the national security identities pegged to the Democratic and Republican brand names can't be done by hiring better PR firms to design more effective ad campaigns. Symbolism matters but only if backed by substance. People take matters of life and death seriously. General Clark offers the National Democratic Party a historic opening, a chance to redefine itself in the eyes of critical swing voters after 30 years of Republican battering in the wake of the Viet Nam. Clark placed his four stars on the table for the Democrats, which in itself conveys important symbolism, but in Clark's case he consistently backed that symbolism up with very real and ongoing substance.

Wes Clark is not a photo op politician and the uniform of his decades of service never becomes a political prop. Since 2003 General Clark has been in constant meaningful dialogue with the American people on matters of national security. His PAC website is called "SecuringAmerica.com" and a quick browse through it offers a better overview of the challenges facing America in the 21st century than a typical Graduate level course in international relations. By redefining and then explaining the basic elements needed to guarantee America's ongoing security in the coming decades, Wes Clark paints a very different picture than the one being sold by Republicans, and unlike some Democrat's mimicry, Clark offers the field depth found only in legitimate three dimensional vision. Look no further than Iran to see that difference.

Unlike the two dimensional posturing that most Democratic politicians engage in regarding Iran, which consists of mostly sounding tough while saying we should be willing to talk directly with Iran, General Clark readily admits to and explains at length how our government contributed to the dangerous current impasse between our nations. Not only is Clark fearless about advocating "Give Peace a Chance", he details what actual peace realistically can look like while offering a series of specific steps to take us from here to there. All within a context of positively reframing America's position in the world anticipating changes the 21st century undoubtedly will bring.

Democrats must articulate a real strategy for furthering peace and prosperity in the world, one that goes beyond platitudes and actually rings true to American's who believe there are those in this world, men like the frequently cited Osama Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, capable of harboring ill will and intent toward us and our nation. Wes Clark prominently states at the StopIranWar.com web site that he co-sponsors with VoteVets.org: "War is not the answer". Democrats need to explain why that is so at time when real security threats confront us, while we still possess the most powerful military in the world.

It is not an easy task but it is one that General Clark thinks Democrats can and must be up to, both to secure significant victories as a political party, and to secure real peace for our nation. It is why Wes Clark is our longest and strongest member of the new "Fighting Dems", working to recast the Democratic Party's image, while broadening the Democratic Party's message and base, so that we can recast our nation's policies and govern with strong majorities committed to using our nation's resources to help our nation's people.

Wes Clark represents a bold and different approach that the Democratic Party now has an option to pursue; "Option C". Whether it will or not is still uncertain.

---

by: Tom Rinaldo @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 14:55:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clark (0.00 / 0)

I like his approach, although to really defeat this when the propaganda wars start, I think we will need to also have less cerebral arguments.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 16:47:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, we need arguments for every level (0.00 / 0)

In fairness to Clark he also delivers good one liners like: "I think we should be willing to talk to people before we bomb them".

---

by: Tom Rinaldo @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:19:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Protests (4.00 / 2)

Mike,

I agree with everything you said. However, I would reiterate one point that I hate to keep making but feel the need to:

Democrats are going to keep caving to Bush and the Republicans on issues of national security out of fear until Democrats are more afraid of their voters than they are of Republican attacks.

One idea that occurs to me is that we need to start up the protest marches again, kind of like what happened before the war in Iraq started. My sense is that the country and the Congress will respond differently this time around, knowing how badly Iraq turned out. With the electoral momentum heavily in favor of progressive ideas and strongly opposing more wars, Congress is in a much better position to respond to a million people showing up on the mall.

---

by: astrodem @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 14:56:58 PM CDT

September 15th (4.00 / 1)

There'll be a big Iraq war protest on the Mall. It'd probably be fine to express an opinion about more than one stupid war at a time.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:01:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point to the broken military (4.00 / 1)

and ask them where they intend to find the troops to accomplish such a mission.  Underscore this question by pointing back at the invasion of Iraq and asking to what extent the subsequent failure was due to the Rumsfeld notion of using fewer troops than suggested by the military brass.

Ask them how they intend to pay for it.  Raise taxes?  Maybe a War on Terror Tax?  Fees to go through the security check-points at the airports?  Or, maybe their happy to saddle their grandkids with the debt....

Put the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan back on top.  Relate this to the diversion of effort by the war in Iraq, and make the point that ANOTHER diversion by starting a war with Iran can only compound the problems.

Of course, point out that unlike Afghanistan and Iraq - the Iranian military is quite capable of mobilizing heavy artillery, tanks, and an airforce.

If all that fails - make it very clear to the Democrats (hell, even the Republicans) in the US Congress that they cannot shirk their responsibility and let the Bush League take the US into yet another undeclared war.  If Bush pushes this as a pre-emptive strike - debate and declare it BEFORE the invasion commences.  If he pulls it off as a "response to Iranian aggression" vis-a-vis the first war with Iraq, hold to the Constitutional provision that he seek and obtain an official declaration of war within 90 days of sending the troops into battle.  This is crucial.  I cannot believe that the BS reasoning given for invading Iraq could have possibly withstood a public debate about it before the invasion took place - and the putative invasion of Iran will not either.

Point out the huge cost of yet another undeclared war.  In treasure. In blood.  In international relations.

Point out that the US has no coalition (not even a fake one) to back them on this issue - if we couldn't win in Afghanistan and Iraq WITH support from the some other nations - what fucking chance do we have in Iran??

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:13:14 PM CDT

Send it back to Bush (4.00 / 1)

If the Dems were at all bold, I think an important part of the strategy would be to question whether we want to get involved in another, even bigger war, while Bush is Commander in Chief. Bush already has no credibility, so that part doesn't need selling. Two things are needed: for Dems to openly say that the disaster in Iraq is Bush's fault, from start to finish, due to his total incompetence as a leader -- that he's gotten us into a misguided and tragic situation that has become a quagmire with no possibility of a happy ending for America or for Iraq.

The second part is that Iran may indeed prove to be a threat sometime in the future. If that future becomes reality, we are ready and able to use American military force to eliminate the threat if all else fails. But we have time to use other options first. We do not need to make military moves now, which would be suicide for our troops and our homeland if we let a disastrous failure like Bush remain in charge. We do not need an even more damaging replay of the Iraq fiasco, but that is all we can expect if we let ourselves be stampeded into another military adventure with Bush and Cheney in charge.

And Dems might add, if we really do believe that it is necessary to go to war in Iran within the next year, a quick impeachment of Bush and Cheney becomes a matter of utmost national security.

I think that's a simple, straightforward argument that builds on what an overwhelming majority already believe. It's sellable by any Dems willing to speak truth to power.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:24:16 PM CDT

I Apologize.... (0.00 / 0)

My post is essentially the same as yours.  I obviously should have read all the posts before giving my opinion.  Naturally, I will rate your post as a "4"  : ).

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:04:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

War with Iran not our decision (0.00 / 0)

It is not complicated. We will not go after Iran if they continue making atomic wmd. But Israel will. And we can do nothing about it. So it is Iran's decision. Continue going down their current road and Israel will nuke them. Take it to the bank.

Clinton in '08. Or give Carter a 2nd term. Vote for Obama!

---

by: Joliepoint @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:26:58 PM CDT

Yes it is (0.00 / 0)

Not without US backing, they won't. But of course they'll get it, so moot point.

---

by: DaveW @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:32:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I doubt it (0.00 / 0)

It's entirely possible they may try to bomb the facilities like they did with the Iraqis back in the 1980s, although I think the Iranians have factored that in and built much of the nuclear infrastructure underground.

But nuking? Olmert's only chance not to be the most hated Israeli PM ever is to make some progress with the Palestinians, and making Natanz glow (and quite possibly starting World War III) is not going to accomplish that. It's unlikely that even Netanyahu is that crazy. Avigdor Lieberman may be, but I hope it'll be a cold day in hell before he gets anywhere near the premiership.

Besides, unless there is actual evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons then it is illegitimate, even under the Bush doctrine, to support Israel in the event that it nukes Iran. Certainly if Israel got the message that it is on its own if it continues on the path the rest of the world tried not to follow after Nagasaki, which would hopefully be the result of public opposition to a war with Iran, then that kind of horror might be avoided.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:44:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And WHERE will the radioactive (0.00 / 0)

fallout from such an attack end up?

Which way do the upper atmosphere winds blow?  Toward, or away from Israel?  Where do major Iranian rivers empty, and who's water will be contaminated?  Will the radiation damaged area include any shipping lanes? 

Blowing up nuclear warheads in your own backyard - or even a yard 2 blocks away - is insanity, unless you think that you can calculate that none of the shit will splatter on you, or your friends, then the insane becomes viable.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:01:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

From a local activist perspective (0.00 / 0)

My wife and I have contemplated civil disobedience.  We have organized anti-war protests in the Pasadena community for the last several years.  We think that carefully stopping traffic at major intersections and holding the intersection until police arrive is one way we can start something that wakes  up our community. 

It might seem naive but how else are we going to reach the ignorant members of our communities.  We have to inconvenience them!

---

by: pbriggsiam @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 15:59:45 PM CDT

Blogswarm (0.00 / 0)

I'm outraged of course. How about a blogswarm with more than Cenk and Matt? Four and a half years of Iraq not enough? When enough big bloggers get on it, the mainstream media or Democratic candidates usually react.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 16:49:48 PM CDT

'Wuss factor' not the only thing (4.00 / 2)

It's obviously an important element of the explanation for the actions (or lack thereof!) of senior Dems on Iran.

But I'm disposed to suspect that the standard lefty sphere characterization of Dem foreign policy - they believe in the right things, but are too afraid of electoral blowback to do them - is (however gloomy it might seem) erring on the Pollyanna-ish side.

The military-industrial complex has had no difficulty in thriving under presidents of both parties since WW2; US expansionism is not a Bush II invention.

Plus - as I've mentioned before here - the idea of a progressive empire has a century-old tradition. (The progressive elements of European empires, on the other hand, were rather secondary and tacked-on, where they existed at all.)

And Bush's dispensing with UN authorization for Iraq followed closely Clinton's doing the same for bombing the crap out of Serbia. (Goose, meet gander.)

If a Dem prez in 09 faces a decision whether or not to start a war with Iran, she (or he) would be working on the same assumptions and ideology as Bush and war with Iraq. It wouldn't be a total surprise if the result was the same.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 16:52:11 PM CDT

Simple truth (0.00 / 0)

I yearn for Democrats with enough guts to say the simple truth: Iran is no realistic threat to the United States, the unfortunate troops stranded in Bush's folly in Iraq excepted. There really is no way to answer the war party without educating the US people in this home truth.

Iran may be some threat to Israel, but Israel is the nuclear power in this equation. It can take care of itself and will do so. That is what states do, except for empires gone mad (and on the way to bankrupt) like ours.

No I don't expect Democrats to say these truths out loud. Folks in this country have been taught they can smash up the world like a two year old having a temper tantrum and suffer no consequences. The only way we'll learn there are consequences is when we suffer them.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 16:53:49 PM CDT

I don't think it's even a threat to Israel (0.00 / 0)

There's no definite evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. It wouldn't surprise me, because that's certainly worked for North Korea, but we can't confirm that as yet.

Even if it is, the consensus (last I checked) from those who aren't actively promoting war with Iran is that their progress is rather slow and we're not likely to see a nuclear-armed Iran until 2015 at the earliest.

In that context, I'd suggest that actually Iran isn't much of a threat to Israel. Even if it does get a nuke, Israel almost certainly has better missiles and probably heavier warheads (having had their nukes much longer.) Add to that the certainty that Israel will respond to any attack in more than kind, and it seems like the Iranian leadership (who can't just be dismissed as insane) are probably more scared of Israel than Israel should be of Iran. Sabre-rattling from Iran against Israel goes little further than one demagogic leader with no real power in foreign affairs being misquoted as calling for Israel to be wiped off the map).

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:52:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Easy Way to Oppose Bush on Iran (0.00 / 0)

The infuriating thing about the Democrats' lack of spine on this issue is that there is such an easy, "painless" way to oppose Bush on this. If I was a national Democrat, I would just say that I oppose any major military action by President Bush, unless we are first attacked by a clearly identifiable foe. 

I would give two basis for this position; both are undeniable: (1) The use of intelligence under Bush has been horrible and there is no indication that it is getting better.  What happened on 911 is the biggest intelligence failure in our history.  The intelligence mistakes concerning the war in Iraq, specifically the absence of WMDs, is the second biggest.  Furthermore, Iraq also showed that Bush will twist intelligence in a way to support his preconceived notion of what he wants to do.  Considering the intelligence failures of his Administration, and the well known attempts to doctor intelligence to receive a result he wants, nothing that Bush can say as a justification of why he needs to act on Iran can be believed.  (2) Operationally, they have shown such incompetence in Iraq that even if their use of intelligence could be trusted, they can not be trusted to plan and execute an operation and its aftermath.  Trusting this Administration to successfully plan and conduct a major military operation would be like going to a surgeon who has committed multiple malpractice.  The lives of American service personnel are too valuable to trust with Bush.

Making the issue Bush and his incompetence accomplishes four things favorable to the Democrats.  First, the Democrats dont have to seem weak by opposing a military strike against Iran per se.  They are just opposing Bush's use of the military.  Second, this position puts the emphasis on Bush's incompetence not whether Democrats are too weak to use force.  Third, it is a simple argument.  Fourth, it happens to be true.  Bush really has proven to be too incompetent and dishonest in his use of intelligence and the war in Iraq was conducted with so many operational and planning mistakes that he really should not be trusted to perform another major military operation.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:00:45 PM CDT

Right (4.00 / 1)

Instead, the Democrats should be trusted to wage a war against Iran.  Not.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:11:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I don't buy the "we're incompetent" frame (0.00 / 0)

Not to say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone well, but I think that - from the perspective of the Neo-Con Junta - the goal in Iraq was to dig a very, very deep hole.  A hole so deep that no Democratic President that takes office in 2009 will have much chance of getting the US out of that hole.

All the things that make this look like a bungled invasion were claims made by the Bush Administration to SELL THE WAR to the US citizens and the US Congress.  They did a BRILLIANT JOB.  Maybe YOU weren't taken in - but about 60-65% of your fellow citizens were.  I won't even talk about how wonderfully they hood-winked the US Congress - it was almost flawless.

Given the combined experience of the Bush Cabinet in affairs of the military, the Middle East, and the Project for a New American Century - it is inconcievable that they could have had so little insight into the post-invasion situation.  No, in my opinion, they knew pretty much all of that - but also knew that if they tried to sell the war based on those truths - and their plan to maintain a US military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future (30-50 years) - few would have bought it.  So: BAIT AND SWITCH.

The only drawback is that the actual goal of the war does not comport with the ones used to sell it, so inevitably, you will look incompetent when measured against the public rationales.  That is, your adminstration will be painted as a failure, and your President as an incompetent fool.  But, what the heck, everyone has to sacrifice, right? (and you'll still have lots of cash) Besides, foolishness can be forgiven over time, but imperial aggressive military campaigns aimed at dominating other regions of the world are very hard to forgive.  Has anyone ever forgiven Hitler?  Mussolini?  Pol Pot?  Or any other bloody dictator our human race has brought forth upon this planet?

Early on, Rumsfeld was more open about this - back when he'd try and relate the war in Iraq with WW2 and the 40 year + timeframe that US troops remained stationed in Germany and other European nations.  He said it so easily, so naturally, that the quick little "cake walk" war could be transformed into a 50 year occupation of Iraq.  Almost as if his dreams had finally come true.  But what was the result?  He was laughed at - he was ridiculed - he played the fool all the way to the 14 permanent US military bases in Iraq.

But, there's that nasty necessity in the faux democracy - elections - and unpopular Presidents make it very hard for the same party to hold the White House after their term.  Clearly with Cheney as VP, these guys had no serious intention of running their incumbent VP as Bush's successor - they wrote off that possiblity the day they invaded Iraq based on a set of "justifications" that had little to do with their actual intentions.  Better to let the Other Party take over the quagmire and get themselves all messed up trying to fix an unfixable situation, then your party can blame them for undoing all your good work and waltz back into the White House in 4 or 8 years, to reinvigorate the occupation. 


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:39:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No Way to Prove (0.00 / 0)

which of us is right.  Obviously, I think you give them waaaaaaay to much "credit." 

I think the "smart" thing for them to have done is not to have invaded Iraq at all because the situation there was, is and will always be "unwinnable".  Without that, Bush probably would have won a 40+ state landslide and much larger majorities in Congress.  Assumming that I am wrong and that it was somehow possible to "win" in Iraq, then the Bush Administration would have been much better off politically if it followed a smart military policy and won the war then they are now.  To me, it is inconceivable that they screwed this up so badly as part of a "plan" because the war is killing them politically

Finally, I dont think the Democrats will be in a "hole" in Iraq at all.  All the Democrat will have to do is get out of Iraq in a reasonably quick time period.  True, Iraq's civil war will greatly intensify, but the Democrats will not pay a political price for that.  Frankly, rightly or not, I think most Americans will look at our sacrifice in both blood and treasure and figure that we did everything we could to help, but they insist on killing each other.  I dont think the American public will have much sympathy for the Iraqis so I dont think there will be any political cost for the Dems.

---

by: Andy Katz @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:46:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I guess I just don't think that (0.00 / 0)

Bush's goal was to get re-elected and conduct a "classical" Presidency- his goal was to put the Neo-Con Junta's imperial plans into operational mode.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:06:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Iran (4.00 / 1)

Mike,

Unfortunately Americans live in a 60 second sound bite culture. The above detailed explanations are absolutely right on the mark--however, to get a quick sustained impression on the American populace I believe strategists and the netroots sounding boards should be promoting a question.  Such as: " With our current broken military should America be starting a THIRD WAR?" Or," America to start Third War?"  We need to get the average Joe concerned enough to pay attention to the fact that we may be on the path to fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq at the same time. 

---

by: SoDak Patriot @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:04:12 PM CDT

Iran (0.00 / 0)

Mike,

Unfortunately Americans live in a 60 second sound bite culture. The above detailed explanations are absolutely right on the mark--however, to get a quick sustained impression on the American populace I believe strategists and the netroots sounding boards should be promoting a question.  Such as: " With our current broken military should America be starting a THIRD WAR?" Or," America to start Third War?"  We need to get the average Joe concerned enough to pay attention to the fact that we may be on the path to fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran at the same time. 

---

by: SoDak Patriot @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:07:56 PM CDT

I read the comments above about Israel nuking Iran and I feel ill (4.00 / 1)

Too many of the above comments -- by pushing Bush's incompetence -- obscure the utter depravity of the Iraq enterprise in the first place.

Consider Israel for a moment.  It was founded by socialists.  Communists were a significant force.  Many wanted to set up Israel as some kind of social-democratic state.  Oh, yeah, and a Jewish state.

ALL these progressives, of every stripe, bought into Israel's fundamental (so-called) right to dispossess the Palestinians.  And then they had to do things to enforce their dispossession of the Palestinians.  And the slope got slippier and slippier until Israel, I would say inevitably, became the horror it is today.  For Jews and Arabs alike.

If we buy in to some American right (and note my chauvinism in saying American rather than United States) to be number one, to be the arbiter of international justice, to do whatever we supposedly need to do to protect our so-called national interest, then we are on a similar slope.  See, we really do need that oil!

There are forces that challenge eternal U.S. supremacy, some consciously (like China and Russia), some unconsciously (like the planet running short on oil), and if progressives accept that we have that right, then the foreign policy establishment will beat us over the head with it over and over and over, and WE WILL NOT HAVE AN ANSWER.  (pardon my shouting, but my keyboard doesn't scream).

If we have an honest understanding of American dominance being untenable in a multi-polar world, then we will at least have a foundation from which we can develop how to begin managing this without a century of war.  If we hedge, the American people will smell a rat, and choose an honest warmonger over a dishonest warmonger.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

---

by: jeffroby @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:09:52 PM CDT

The simple answer (4.00 / 1)

is to declare Bush and Cheney will be impeached if they attack Iran without an explicit Declaration of War by Congress.

Cheney's threats against Iran already constitute Article III of Dennis Kucinich's H.Res. 333, which has 18 co-sponsors.

Of course it could use 233 co-sponsors so everyone should email their Representatives to support H.Res. 333.

---

by: bob fertik @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 17:23:57 PM CDT

This could work (0.00 / 0)

I am not sure who or what body you have in mind to "declare Bush and Cheney will be impeached".

But if you mean that Congress should pass a resolution to this effect, I think this is a sound strategy that could work.

It would enable Congress to get its act together and put Bush and Cheney on notice BEFOREHAND that THEY WILL BE IMPEACHED IF THEY ATTACK IRAN.

All things considered, this would be a good move.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 20:43:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Better Reasons (4.00 / 1)

The problem with arguing that we can't wage a third war right now is that the Bushies are probably only planning to launch an air attack against Iran. The US does have the capability to launch an air attack against another country without straining the military very much since Iraq is primarily a ground war.

Of course, an air attack would develop into a full-scale war, but they could say "oops" like they did when they invaded Iraq and "thought" it would be a cakewalk.

I think better responses are:

* Attacking Iran will make our country less safe. The US CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shah who then oppressed people for decades. The mostly nonviolent Islamic revolution that resulted was probably a direct response to that. An attack on Iran now would have even worse consequences. We could expect regular terrorist attacks on US territory for decades. Is this what we want?

* Iran does not pose a threat to the United States or its interests. Bush's "intelligence" that says otherwise is just the same crap that he used to trick us into invading Iraq. Even if Iraq develops a nuclear weapon in a dozen years, Iran will still not pose much of a threat -- they will not attack us for fear of massive retaliation. And some good diplomacy could prevent them from developing a nuke.

* If we think we should attack Iran because it is run by a bunch of sleazy, crazy autocrats, then are we also going to attack Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, and all the other countries that are run by run by a bunch of sleazy, crazy autocrats? Most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. Shouldn't we attack the Saudis too?

* Do we really want to be known as the country that launches wars against other countries who have never attacked us and have never threatened to do so? I thought we fought against countries that did that. We fought against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan because that is what they did.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 18:05:41 PM CDT

Thanks. (0.00 / 0)

There are a lot of good ideas here, and I really appreciate all of you thinking about this. This is pretty damn important to get our strategy for stopping this war push right, because if we thought one fucked up war was bad, two at the same time would be a nightmare beyond imagination. I know a lot of folks are thinking about this, which is at least some comfort. 

---

by: Mike Lux @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 20:49:07 PM CDT

How many wars? (0.00 / 0)

My count: Afghanistan - Iraq - Iran (putative)

Your count: Iraq - Iran (putative)

Bush League count: War on Terror (on-going and endless)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:46:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good point. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Mike Lux @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 14:35:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Week after Labor Day (0.00 / 0)

The White House is planning a PR blitz this week to sell the attack on Iran. I'm sure some of you already know that but I heard it on Thom Hartmann's show.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

---

by: donna darko @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 20:59:55 PM CDT