Democrats Cave to Warlords

[Winstonm]

With polls showing two-thirds of Americans opposing the war, Congress went ahead and caved in to the Bush demands for unrestricted war funding. Whatever happened to "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?

 

There are some striking parallels in the disconnect between the will of the governed and the actions of the U.S. government when compared to an essay written by Miltion Mayer and published by the Chicago Free Press.

 

"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap between the government and the people.

 

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security.

 

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes.

 

Uncertainty is a very important factor.  So you wait, and you wait.

 

"But the one great shocking occasion never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked.

 

But of course this isn’t the way it happens. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."

 

As you probably guessed, this essay was written about 1933 Germany and Nazism. I make no claim that such is happening in the U.S., but I find the similarities disquieting. As Mr. Mayer showed in his paper, it is at the beginnings that these changes must be stopped. If you don't question A, you next get B, then C and so on.

 

It is no longer acceptable to be told that 2+2= whatever is of necessity that day to fuel the agenda. If ""we the people" refuse our obligation to self govern, then we will be ruled by those in power. There seems no longer to be any true disparity between Democrats and Republicans, simply the left and right arms of one party, the War Party. In the last election, Democrats were placed in power with only one clear mandate - stop the Iraw war. Having failed, who is left to turn to for inacting the will of the people? Or does that even matter any more?

[pbleighton]

I have a different point of view on this, Winston, although I tend to agree with you on the war:

 

1. We will be in Iraq through the end of this year, at least, regardless of what the Democrats do. They can't override a veto.

2. The percentage of voters who want to start troop withdrawals immediately is growing, but still small, roughly 20%, depending which poll you read. The explanation for this, I believe, is that the American philosophy of "every problem has a solution" still has a residual pull on Iraq.

3. This pull is fading. The *surge* is not a new strategy, it is Bush's attempt to buy time with the public. By that measure, and only by that measure, it has been successful.

4. If the *surge* continues to fail, support for immediate withdrawal will continue to increase. This number is the key metric for leaving, not the various dissatisfaction numbers.

5. IMO, sometime this fall or next spring there will be enough sentiment for withdrawal to permit the passage of a good bill, with significant Republican support.

6. It is important that there be no blaming doves for *losing Iraq*. I don't think we should leave until a majority of voters want us to leave. There are potential *optional* wars lurking in out future. I want us to have our noses rubbed in failure, so we don't make this mistake again.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Personally, I'm not quite sure what to think of last week's vote. I'm the suspicious sort, and I believe that there might be a bit more to this story than meets the eye... For example, the front page of this morning's New York Times contained the following article started with the following:

 

The Bush administration is developing what are described as concepts for reducing American combat forces in Iraq by as much as half next year, according to senior administration officials in the midst of the internal debate.

 

It is the first indication that growing political pressure is forcing the White House to turn its attention to what happens after the current troop increase runs its course.

 

The concepts call for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels by the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000, the latest available figure, which the military reported on May 1. They would also greatly scale back the mission that President Bush set for the American military when he ordered it in January to win back control of Baghdad and Anbar Province.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/washingt...BvI6Bbt2GHg21dQ

 

This is a very significant policy change from the open ended surge that Bush was pushing just a couple weeks back. I wonder whether the Congressional leadership reached some sort of quid pro quo with the White House. Congress agreed not to implement formal time tables if the White agreed to start the planning process for an eventual withdrawal.

 

At the end of the day, I'm more interested in policy changes than political grandstanding. It would have been nice if a formal benchmarking process had been adopted; however, I think that everyone understands that the last Friedman unit expires in September...

[pbleighton]

This is a very significant policy change from the open ended surge that Bush was pushing just a couple weeks back. I wonder whether the Congressional leadership reached some sort of quid pro quo with the White House. Congress agreed not to implement formal time tables if the White agreed to start the planning process for an eventual withdrawal.

 

I very much doubt it.

 

It would have been nice if a formal benchmarking process had been adopted; however, I think that everyone understands that the last Friedman unit expires in September...

 

September may turn out to be the key month. Congressional Republicans are going to start staring into the abyss.....

 

And in 2009 many of them may return to the private sector they profess to adore ;)

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

I think the Democrats should never have given in. It's their majority so they should be able to pull the strings. Bush will veto it 5 times? Try a 6th time. If this is what they are made of I fear for all the US citizens and the world that they will have to suffer another Republican president.

[pbleighton]

I think the Democrats should never have given in. It's their majority so they should be able to pull the strings. Bush will veto it 5 times? Try a 6th time.

 

This isn't the last vote, by any means. Meet you in September...

 

I understand the frustration of the antiwar folks, being one myself, but this is a big train, and it's going to take a while to stop.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Richard, you make an interesting point. I have my doubts, though, about any quid pro quo with the arrogance displayed by this executive branch.

 

An equally plausible concept is that the Dems are tyring to isolate Bush, making it even more his war while avoiding any fallout if the "follow us home crowd" actually turns out to be right, and hoping to win an even bigger majority in 2008.

 

I think this is miscalculation on the Dems part, though. But it does show me that in Washington politics supercedes all, including American lives lost. Either party, IMO, would gladly sacrifice a few hundred more soldiers if it meant winning another seat in the next election process.

 

I don't know if it's quite time, yet, but I can see a time in the not too distant future when a viable third-party candidate would have a fighting chance of being elected, if the voting booths weren't rigged.

 

I think the phenomenon of Ron Paul is pointing that direction - although a Republican, he doesn't follow either party's line and shows more independence of thought than anyone else currently running.

[hrothgar]

Richard, you make an interesting point.  I have my doubts, though, about any quid pro quo with the arrogance displayed by this executive branch.

 

An equally plausible concept is that the Dems are tyring to isolate Bush, making it even more his war while avoiding any fallout if the "follow us home crowd" actually turns out to be right, and hoping to win an even bigger majority in 2008.

 

I think this is miscalculation on the Dems part, though.  But it does show me that in Washington politics supercedes all, including American lives lost.  Either party, IMO, would gladly sacrifice a few hundred more soldiers if it meant winning another seat in the next election process.

I'm not sure if this is a miscalculation by the Democrats or not...

 

Regretfully, they don't have many cards to play. In theory, the Democrats could pass a War Spending authorization that enforces time tables. The President would veto it. The democrats could pass it again, the President would veto it... Ad infinitum. This wouldn't impact war funding or Op Tempo one stinking bit. The Army's operational budget was passed long, long ago. They have plenty of money run things. Sticking it to the White House like this might make some people feel smug, but it doesn't do anyone any good...

 

Its worth considering one point that Peter raised: The War is a big train, which is moving VERY fast. We've spent years positioning troops and materials in Iraq. We're going to need to spend about the same amount of time pulling all that stuff back out. (I don't think that anyone wants a modern day Dunkirk, where the US abandons all of its tanks, helicopters, ammunition, and other heavy equipment in Iraq. The US retreat from Iraq will need to be carefully planned and responsibly executed. This isn't going to start happening if the White House and the Congressional leaders are engaged in some stupid pissing contest.

 

I'm sorry: A lot more US soldiers are going to die before we pull out. A hell of a lot of Iraqi's are going to die after we pull out. Hopefully, this will teach folks to be a bit more responsible before they go out and play war...

[Winstonm]

1. We will be in Iraq through the end of this year, at least, regardless of what the Democrats do. They can't override a veto.

 

True, the veto override is not available; however, by continually sending a similar bill back to the president, you end up making the president look like the one who is inflexible, not Congress. If every bill had a timetable for withdrawl, it would have the support of the majority of Americans as shown by this latest NYT/CBS poll.

 

Most Americans support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.

 

support for immediate withdrawal will continue to increase. This number is the key metric for leaving, not the various dissatisfaction numbers.

 

I don't follow this reasoning - what difference does it make between get out now and get out in 6 months? A get out now policiy would take at least 6 months to execute, and I believe those who approve a measured withdrawl are simply acknowledging that "now" is not possible.

 

 

But in the meantime, Bush is trying to have his wiretapping powers increased, Gitmo is still up and running, and the latest National Emergency measures have been signed, giving the president broad powers in case of national emergencies.

 

If you don't stop A, then you get B, and if that flies you get C and so on. It is not blatant acts that have to be halted, but the indideous ones that don't seem all that bad at the time.

[mike777]

I ask this in all seriousness, what exactly does a get out now policy mean? All Americans out of Iraq, all combat soldiers, all money? If and when would we use, you support, combat force, in any manner in the future in Iraq?

[mike777]

For sake of discussion if one defines strategic planning as an individual taking into account the behavior of other individuals before acting, I see no discussion of what our strategic plan is if we pull out now. This seems to me a repeat of the lack of discussion of a strategic plan after Baghdad fell.

[hrothgar]

I ask this in all seriousness, what exactly does a get out now policy mean? All Americans out of Iraq, all combat soldiers, all money? If and when would we use, you support,  combat force, in any manner in the future in Iraq?

If I had to make a guess, a "Get Out Now" policy pretty much looks like the following:

 

1. The US starts by defining a pair of footprints in Iraq. The first footprint defines those areas that the US intends to protect. The second footprint defines a minimal set of US bases. My expectation is that the first footprint will include the Northern No Fly Zone plus the Green Zone. The second footprint will include a few bases located in "Kurdistan".

 

2. The US will plan a staged withdraw. Most heavy units will return to the US and Europe. Some will be pre-positioned at Diego Garcia. The US will maintain rapid reaction forces in Kurdistan to provide a force projection capability. A number of other units will (probably) be cycled back into Afghanistan.

 

3. The US will pull out and Iraq will start to burn. Worst case scenario is that we end up with something that looks a lot like the Gaza strip. No effective central government emerges, however, the US feels obligated to constantly launch putative expeditions to try to root out "terrorists".

 

4. At some point in time, things may stabilize to the point where folks are willing to try to rebuild the country. I'm not about to hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

[mike777]

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers. Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq? Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

 

I wonder how the American public would poll if they thought "get out now" means we stay, we fight, we continue to die.

[pbleighton]

An equally plausible concept is that the Dems are tyring to isolate Bush, making it even more his war while avoiding any fallout if the "follow us home crowd" actually turns out to be right, and hoping to win an even bigger majority in 2008.

 

Yes, I think this is part of it.

 

The Republicans see this, of course. How many of them jump the fence and become peaceniks is the major political question of the next 18 months.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

For sake of discussion if one defines strategic planning as an individual taking into account the behavior of other individuals before acting, I see no discussion of what our strategic plan is if we pull out now.

 

Well, Mike, we are not going to pull out now. We will probably start to leave in 12-20 months from now.

 

But let me offer the most likely scenario, with my crystal ball:

 

We will leave, with our tails between our legs.

 

The civil war will intensify.

 

Our national and humanitarian interests will point to one overrriding goal: working with countries in the region, INCLUDING Iran and Syria (which Bush apparently lacks the emotional maturity to do), to prevent this U.S.-caused war from spreading across the region. This will probably involve bribery on a national scale. It may or may not work.

 

Now, if we stay for 5 years, then leave, this is what will happen:

 

We will leave, with our tails between our legs.

 

The civil war will intensify.

 

Our national and humanitarian interests will point to one overrriding goal: working with countries in the region, INCLUDING Iran and Syria (which Bush apparently lacks the emotional maturity to do), to prevent this U.S.-caused war from spreading across the region. This will probably involve bribery on a national scale. It may or may not work.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

I don't follow this reasoning - what difference does it make between get out now and get out in 6 months?

 

Public opinion. We live in a democracy.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

 

I wonder how the American public would poll if they thought "get out now" means we stay, we fight, we continue to die.

What is wrong with a get out now strategy similar to the Vietnam get out now effort. I don't remember any troops left stationed in Ho Chi Minh City and don't recall any sent back. What is so incredible about Ron Paul's non-interventionist ideas. The only thing that keeps us in Iraq, and threatens to keep us there for centuries is U.S. policy.

 

The middle-east is quite capable of screwing up their own affairs without the U.S. helping them along. If a division of Islamic fundamentalists lands on Long Beach, then we can fight them. If terrorists plot to blow up Washington, we can arrest them. What we don't need to do is go halfway around the world to try to bully a country into adopting our views. Better for us to figure out how to maintain our own economy than to try to take an agenca by force to the rest of the world.

 

I think we are living in the past too much, thinking America is still such a huge superpower, when we are much closer to the end of our reign as world champs than the beginning. Dynasty's that lose control of their own economies are doomed to failure.

[pbleighton]

I think we are living in the past too much, thinking America is still such a huge superpower, when we are much closer to the end of our reign as world champs than the beginning. Dynasty's that lose control of their own economies are doomed to failure.

 

Well, IMO we are still such a huge superpower, we are just completely delusional about the limits of force, and in denial about the criminality of *preemptive* wars.

 

Peter

[Winstonm]

I don't follow this reasoning - what difference does it make between get out now and get out in 6 months?

 

Public opinion. We live in a democracy.

 

Peter

When did that change? Last I heard we lived under the "presidential choice" not to make us enemy combattants or to decide not to enforce martial law. And the good news is this is the law of the land, now, meaning it doesn't matter whether we elect a Democrat, a Republican, or Stalin himself, the whim of the president overrules any democratic process previously established.

 

Is this the freedom and democracy we are exporting by bomb to the rest of the world?

 

No wonder everyone is so pissed off.

[mike777]

For sake of discussion if one defines strategic planning as an individual taking into account the behavior of other individuals before acting, I see no discussion of what our strategic plan is if we pull out now.

 

Well, Mike, we are not going to pull out now. We will probably start to leave in 12-20 months from now.

 

But let me offer the most likely scenario, with my crystal ball:

 

We will leave, with our tails between our legs.

 

The civil war will intensify.

 

Our national and humanitarian interests will point to one overrriding goal: working with countries in the region, INCLUDING Iran and Syria (which Bush apparently lacks the emotional maturity to do), to prevent this U.S.-caused war from spreading across the region. This will probably involve bribery on a national scale. It may or may not work.

 

Now, if we stay for 5 years, then leave, this is what will happen:

 

We will leave, with our tails between our legs.

 

The civil war will intensify.

 

Our national and humanitarian interests will point to one overrriding goal: working with countries in the region, INCLUDING Iran and Syria (which Bush apparently lacks the emotional maturity to do), to prevent this U.S.-caused war from spreading across the region. This will probably involve bribery on a national scale. It may or may not work.

 

Peter

Ok so get out now means exactly what to you? Money, all Americans, All combat power, we do not go back in? To me what you mean by pull out now is very unclear and what your strategic plan/options are after we pull out now is not discussed.

 

What are you pulling out over 18-20 months? Money, all Americans what?

[mike777]

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

 

I wonder how the American public would poll if they thought "get out now" means we stay, we fight, we continue to die.

What is wrong with a get out now strategy similar to the Vietnam get out now effort. I don't remember any troops left stationed in Ho Chi Minh City and don't recall any sent back. What is so incredible about Ron Paul's non-interventionist ideas. The only thing that keeps us in Iraq, and threatens to keep us there for centuries is U.S. policy.

 

The middle-east is quite capable of screwing up their own affairs without the U.S. helping them along. If a division of Islamic fundamentalists lands on Long Beach, then we can fight them. If terrorists plot to blow up Washington, we can arrest them. What we don't need to do is go halfway around the world to try to bully a country into adopting our views. Better for us to figure out how to maintain our own economy than to try to take an agenca by force to the rest of the world.

 

I think we are living in the past too much, thinking America is still such a huge superpower, when we are much closer to the end of our reign as world champs than the beginning. Dynasty's that lose control of their own economies are doomed to failure.

Ok, so you seem clear here. You want a policy, plan similiar to what we did in Vietnam. I hope this is not just refighting a war or afterwar from your youth. ;)

 

In any event you are clear.

 

I just wish those pushing for the vote were this clear. I see nothing reported on these issues.

[Winstonm]

I think we are living in the past too much, thinking America is still such a huge superpower, when we are much closer to the end of our reign as world champs than the beginning. Dynasty's that lose control of their own economies are doomed to failure.

 

Well, IMO we are still such a huge superpower, we are just completely delusional about the limits of force, and in denial about the criminality of *preemptive* wars.

 

Peter

As much as I respect your views, your intelligence, and your education, I regrettably must disagree. IMO, the only advantage the U.S. holds over the world is in military might - numbers of nukes and warring technologies.

 

China and the E.U. surpass us in increase of GDP. We are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. We, at this time, depend on over $3B a day from FCBs to finance our debt. We import 50% of our oil. Our currency is being debased, with Kuwait, Iran, Brazil and Argentina now abandoning the dollar as its reserve currency.

 

And as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have proven, techonological military superiority doesn't count for much without the necessary troops to sustain the occupation against handfuls of insurgents. So we are really back to cold war status in that our only real advantage is in nuclear superiority - which we would have to be criminally insane to utilize.

 

Times have changed. Now we say, "Talk softy and have a good banker because you will need to borrow enough money to be able to buy your big stick from China."

[pbleighton]

I just wish those pushing for the vote were this clear. I see nothing reported on these issues.

 

Don't hold your breath, Mike. Americans hate losing, and love to shoot the messenger. We're polically immature, and get the government we deserve.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

No offense Mike, but maybe you need to spend more time reading newspapers... None of the comments that I made are in any way original. All of these themes are being discussed, both in print, radio, and on line. You simply need to spend some time and effort to know where to look.

 

As I've mentioned before, the "On Point" show that NPR produces is invaluable. In any given week, four of their 10 hour long shows are "must hear" events. There are a number of very good web sites that act as aggregators and provide good pointers at major happenings each day.

 

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ is a great source, though it tends to focus on domestic policy issues.

 

Glenn Greenwald's Daily column at Salon invariably has some very useful information:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

 

Salon also has a Blog Report that provides pointers at a number of the hot topics in the Blogsphere.

http://blogreport.salon.com/

 

If you are especially interested in the Middle East, Juan Cole normally has something interesting to say

http://www.juancole.com/

 

Regretfully, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I have no clue what the average American believes "Get Out Now" means. The bulk of the population was woefully misinformed at the start of the war. I have little reason to expect that they are any better informed now...

[Winstonm]

Ok, so you seem clear here. You want a policy, plan similiar to what we did in Vietnam. I hope this is not just refighting a war or afterwar from your youth.

 

In any event you are clear.

 

I just wish those pushing for the vote were this clear. I see nothing reported on these issues.

 

The only politician I hear echoing these sentiments is Ron Paul - and he is being ignored by the media. I happen to think he is right on many fronts, that what the CIA terms "blowback" is a price we tend to ignore for our interventions. Would we have had the Iran hostage crisis without intervening in 1953 to re-institute the Shah? We first supported and trained Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan - what a surprise that he would have the ability and training to turn against us.

 

I find it odd that we constantly debate what to do about Iraq, when there never should have been an Iraq invasion in the first place. The question should be what penalties are justified for the warmongers who lied us into this insanity?

 

The fact that we invaded does not give us de facto justification for staying. When you take a bull into a china shop and it destroys half the china, the object at that point is not to try to tame the bull and put it on a leash, but to get the bull the hell out so the shopowner can clean up the mess. Of course, if you wanted to pay for the damage that would be civil - we'll ask the BoJ for a 0.5% loan to handle that, which they will be happy to comply with as the inflationary pressures of the expanded money supply leaves their little island and lands elsewhere.