According to the Associated Press, the American people are accepting the realistic outcomes of the War far before Mr Bennett, who continues to grapple with how to ''win'' in Iraq.
''Americans are overwhelmingly resigned to something less than clear-cut victory in Iraq and growing numbers doubt the country will achieve a stable, democratic government no matter how the U.S. gets out, according to an AP poll.
At the same time, dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an all time high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.''
--ajc
Friday, 8 December 2006
Fusionism: A Bright Future?
Brink Lindsey's new piece entitled ''Liberaltarians'' is something I have been trying to say for a long time. The left has a major chance here to do something monumental. This could be a changing point in the history of American politics if Liberals realize the opportunity placed at their feet.
I have been calling for the Left to move towards the center ever since the '04 defeat. Unfortunately, I wasn't doing it as eloquently as this. If you have any interest in a bright future for American government please read this article.
Choice Sections of Lindsey's article:
--''The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government. Just look at the causes that have been generating the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to keep out immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and imposing sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with end-of-life decisions.''
*Side Note: Andrew Sullivan's new book: The Conservative Soul: How We Lost it, How We Get It Back'' is a striking investigation into how the Bush administration has perverted Conservatism.
--''In short, if Democrats hope to continue appealing to libertarian-leaning voters, they are going to have to up their game. They need to ask themselves: Are we content with being a brief rebound fling for jilted libertarians, or do we want to form a lasting relationship? Let me make a case for the second option.
Since the late '60s, and especially the mid-'80s, torrents of words have been spilled urging Democrats to move toward the center of the political spectrum. Most such efforts, however, have advanced one compromise or another between progressivism-as-usual and conservatism-as-usual--a few more items from Menu A here, a few more from Menu B there.
But the real problem with our politics today is that the prevailing ideological categories are intellectually exhausted. Conservatism has risen to power only to become squalid and corrupt, a Nixonian mélange of pandering to populist prejudices and distributing patronage to well-off cronies and Red Team constituencies. Liberalism, meanwhile, has never recovered from its fall from grace in the mid-'60s. Ever since, it has lacked the vitality to do more than check conservative excesses--and obstruct legitimate, conservative-led progress. As a governing philosophy, liberalism has been moribund: When Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton managed to win the White House, they did so only by successfully avoiding the liberal stigma.
Today's ideological turmoil, however, has created an opening for ideological renewal--specifically, liberalism's renewal as a vital governing philosophy. A refashioned liberalism that incorporated key libertarian concerns and insights could make possible a truly progressive politics once again--not progressive in the sense of hewing to a particular set of preexisting left-wing commitments, but rather in the sense of attuning itself to the objective dynamics of U.S. social development. In other words, a politics that joins together under one banner the causes of both cultural and economic progress.Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there.''
In my opinion, this is an essential move for the Left and it has been beautifully laid out in this piece. Well done Brink.
--ajc
Kerry Strikes Again!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T DO THIS TO US JOHN!
Jonah Goldberg from the NRO says Kerry may try to ruin the Democratic Party's chances in yet ANOTHER election!
--ajc
Numbers to Chew On...
1,406,281 - Number of Troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan
393,199 - Number of Reserves deployed
50,000-500,000 - Number of Troops Called Needed for a true reinforced effort in Iraq
Here is a table of the Current Service Deployment of our Armed Forces at the moment from the Army Times. Look at that percentage across the board. Where are we finding these extra half a million troops exactly? Might make you think twice about endorsing further military action.
--ajc
Mary Cheney's Pregnancy
A quote from the ''Americans for Truth'' President Peter LaBarbera:
--''Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting.''
Wow...just...wow...
Just fyi. In 1999, President Bush said he opposed the adoption of children by gay couples. In 2005, Bush's position had to be softened a bit, as his VP's daughter was openly gay. He later said that although he thought heterosexual couples could offer more than homosexuals he was happy for his VP and their family.
For anyone who thought bigotry was fading away...well...it isn't...it is rampant...it just has a new victim.
--ajc
--''Obviously, we’re saddened at the spectacle of the Vice President’s daughter, Mary Cheney, living in an open lesbian relationship, and now bringing a child into a home that is fatherless by design. In our view, this is another case of the “gay” movement putting its wants (in this case, having a child) above what’s best for children. “Two mommies” or “two daddies” will never substitute for a home with a married mom and a dad, and it is sad when men or women model immoral homosexual behavior before innocent children in a home setting.''
Wow...just...wow...
Just fyi. In 1999, President Bush said he opposed the adoption of children by gay couples. In 2005, Bush's position had to be softened a bit, as his VP's daughter was openly gay. He later said that although he thought heterosexual couples could offer more than homosexuals he was happy for his VP and their family.
For anyone who thought bigotry was fading away...well...it isn't...it is rampant...it just has a new victim.
--ajc
Thursday, 7 December 2006
Those in Glass Houses...
Bill Bennett's post on ''The Corner'' Blog for the National Review Online entitled: ''Smug, Arrogant, Insufferable'' seems to be a description of his own words. If I may, I am going to excerpt portions from this post, and comment on them. Feel free to read the whole thing here.''Perhaps the most systemic problem with the report is it didn't tell us how to win; it answered how to get out. The commissioners answered the wrong question, but it was the one they wanted to answer.''
--Win? WIN!? Seriously? What does that mean? Iraq is in complete, violent, bloody sectarian-violence ridden chaos, and you want to talk about WINNING? Please define what winning entails. I don't think there is winning here Mr Bennett, there is damage control, there is making the best of a horrid mistake from an abysmal administration. If you want to win, go play a board game, lets just try to limit the number of people dead and you can call it a victory if that makes you feel better.
''One reporter asked if the president would accept this “edict,” as if there's force of law here. (the press has bought into the tyranny already). Another asked how hard it would be for the president to give up his power, “to take his hands off the wheel.” Do we all need a civics lesson? I’m tempted to go on about knowledge of American government, but for brevity, can we just say the president is the commander-in-chief and in charge — because he is elected by the people.''
--No Bill, there's no 'law' here. There is the voice of the people calling for change. There is the voice of the same people who voted to take back the House in November. There is the the voice of reason which apparently you have completely lost. No, there is no law, there is logic, there is an attempt at intelligence. Yes, George W. is still the president, and no one is denying that, I think the call coming from the ISG is that the president, the guy with an approval rating at less than 38%, simply follow a line of logic and stop being supported for a gigantic mistake that has cost the our country the lives of thousands upon thousands of people. Thanks for your offer for a civics lesson Professor Bennett, but do you really want to throw the books at this administration's conduct?
--ajc
Welcome Mr. Gates
Yesterday, the Senate approved President Bush's appointment of former Director of the CIA, Robert Gates, to the Secretary of Defense post. In a move that many analysts are calling a turning point for policy in Iraq, others remain skeptical about the amount of influence Gates will be able to assert over President Bush in his remaining time. For me, the question of asserting influence over President Bush is a slightly odd one. We really don't know how much of the Iraq mess is Bush's fault. This new appointment may give us an answer. If the policy remains as abhorrent as it has been under Rumsfeld, the onus lands decisively on the President's shoulders. If policies change, situations improve, decisions are better, President Bush may be able to pass off the majority of the blame for this disaster to the departed Secretary. Happy Trails Donny...and Good Riddance.
Welcome Bobby.
--ajc
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
A Sullivian Endorsement
Today on Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, the author endorses a type of action similar to the one described in David Eitelbach's post earlier today.
''The best hope for Iraq is perhaps a temporary surge in U.S. troops to make one last effort at some effort at a relatively peaceful de facto partition, before the near-inevitable U.S. withdrawal and subsequent involvement of Saudis and Egyptians in support of the Sunnis and the Iranians on the side of the Shia. At this point, I'd be relieved if we can save the Kurds.''
-- Andrew Sullivan
--ajc
''The best hope for Iraq is perhaps a temporary surge in U.S. troops to make one last effort at some effort at a relatively peaceful de facto partition, before the near-inevitable U.S. withdrawal and subsequent involvement of Saudis and Egyptians in support of the Sunnis and the Iranians on the side of the Shia. At this point, I'd be relieved if we can save the Kurds.''
-- Andrew Sullivan
--ajc
OBAMANIA!
Uh-Oh Hillary. Could South Carolina really be the determinate of the Democratic Nomination?
Kos thinks so as he paints a pretty picture for Obama fans.
Kos thinks so as he paints a pretty picture for Obama fans.
Radical Questions
It seems as if opinion on American options in Iraq is moving closer and closer to the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group: that the U.S. government engage Syra and Iran, our hated rivals in the Middle East, in diplomatic negations in an attempt to end the sectarian bloodshed in Iraq. The question is, how can we persuade the Iranians and Syrians that it is in their interest to work with us and achieve an objective that we find acceptable? (read: no outside influnce; read: syria and iran.) If we don't provide them with compelling reasons, it may just be easier for them to continue funding their favorite militia in the gigantic "gangland" that is Iraq, in the hope that eventually their influence in that country will be strongest.
For the Iranians, the following idea occurred to me: What are the two most important issues facing Iran at the moment?
1. The possibility of a civil war in Lebanon and Hezbollah's precarious position in that country.
This is a very important issue to Iran, as the regime of President Ahmadinejad seeks to extend Iranian influence throughout the Middle East - particularly in Lebanon, as that country borders Iran's sworn enemy, Israel. The brief war between Hezbollah and Israel this summer severely weakened the Lebanese organization, as an article from Foreign Affairs magazine illustrates: "Hezbollah ended up in a full-scale war, in which it won some battlefield victories and popularity in the Arab and Muslim world but which devastated its Lebanese Shiite constituency and narrowed its tactical and political options." The arm of the Iranians in Lebanon, while still attached to the body, has pretty much gone limp.
As an incentive for Iranians to cooperate with us in Iraq, we could try to apply pressure on Israel to abandon (at least temporarily) its campaign against Hezbollah. Admittedly, that would be a very difficult feat to accomplish. I cannot imagine what amount of leverage from the U.S. would persuade Israel to "give up" on Hezbollah - that's like asking the U.S. to "give up" on defeating Al Qaeda. Hezbollah certainly is not a grave threat to the United States at the moment, so we can afford to give them some breathing room, as long as that helps secure peace in Iraq. But what other approach can the U.S. take to secure Iranian cooperation? This leads naturally into the second most important (or first, who knows really) issue facing Iran:
2. U.S. opposition to Iran's "nuclear energy program".
A more realistic approach to Iran may be easing up off of our campaign against the Iranian government's pursuit of nuclear technology. Once again, this approach would make us wildly unpopular with Israel, and would certainly be unpopular with many (if not most) Americans. But we have to ask ourselves: is a stable Iraq more important than Iranian nuclear ambitions, or vice versa? I'm not sure yet where I stand on this issue, personally.
As an aside, persuading Syria to cooperate with us in Iraq may be much easier. The upcoming UN investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri (which is almost guaranteed to uncover some Syrian complicity) has put a lot of pressure on the Syrian government. Perhaps the U.S. can offer some form of support to Syria during this investigation, although I'm not sure yet what form of support that might be.
These approaches may not mesh well with our well-honed sense of American morality, but they may be pragmatic. Basically, the question comes down to: What is more inimical to American interests, Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq, or Iranian and Syrian influence in Lebanon?
-- DAE
For the Iranians, the following idea occurred to me: What are the two most important issues facing Iran at the moment?
1. The possibility of a civil war in Lebanon and Hezbollah's precarious position in that country.
This is a very important issue to Iran, as the regime of President Ahmadinejad seeks to extend Iranian influence throughout the Middle East - particularly in Lebanon, as that country borders Iran's sworn enemy, Israel. The brief war between Hezbollah and Israel this summer severely weakened the Lebanese organization, as an article from Foreign Affairs magazine illustrates: "Hezbollah ended up in a full-scale war, in which it won some battlefield victories and popularity in the Arab and Muslim world but which devastated its Lebanese Shiite constituency and narrowed its tactical and political options." The arm of the Iranians in Lebanon, while still attached to the body, has pretty much gone limp.
As an incentive for Iranians to cooperate with us in Iraq, we could try to apply pressure on Israel to abandon (at least temporarily) its campaign against Hezbollah. Admittedly, that would be a very difficult feat to accomplish. I cannot imagine what amount of leverage from the U.S. would persuade Israel to "give up" on Hezbollah - that's like asking the U.S. to "give up" on defeating Al Qaeda. Hezbollah certainly is not a grave threat to the United States at the moment, so we can afford to give them some breathing room, as long as that helps secure peace in Iraq. But what other approach can the U.S. take to secure Iranian cooperation? This leads naturally into the second most important (or first, who knows really) issue facing Iran:
2. U.S. opposition to Iran's "nuclear energy program".
A more realistic approach to Iran may be easing up off of our campaign against the Iranian government's pursuit of nuclear technology. Once again, this approach would make us wildly unpopular with Israel, and would certainly be unpopular with many (if not most) Americans. But we have to ask ourselves: is a stable Iraq more important than Iranian nuclear ambitions, or vice versa? I'm not sure yet where I stand on this issue, personally.
As an aside, persuading Syria to cooperate with us in Iraq may be much easier. The upcoming UN investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri (which is almost guaranteed to uncover some Syrian complicity) has put a lot of pressure on the Syrian government. Perhaps the U.S. can offer some form of support to Syria during this investigation, although I'm not sure yet what form of support that might be.
These approaches may not mesh well with our well-honed sense of American morality, but they may be pragmatic. Basically, the question comes down to: What is more inimical to American interests, Iranian and Syrian influence in Iraq, or Iranian and Syrian influence in Lebanon?
-- DAE
Slate's Take on Robert Gates
Slate magazine is very excited about Robert Gates, Rumsfeld's replacement as the Secretary of Defense. In the words of Andrew Sullivan, this is the "money quote" of the article:
Read the rest of the article here.
-- DAE
When Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., threw Gates a soft pitch—asking what he'd learned from his vast experience in Washington—he not only hit it out of the park but carefully tagged all the bases and shook hands with all the basemen as he trotted around the diamond.
Among the lessons he recited: All agencies have to work together to get anything done; consulting with Congress is really important; so is treating people's views with respect; and respecting the professionals—for instance, listening to military commanders when you're planning a war—is really, really important, because "if you don't make them a part of the solution, they will become a part of the problem."
In other words, he was telling the panel: "Anoint me, for I am the anti-Rumsfeld."
Read the rest of the article here.
-- DAE
Iraq Study Group Report
The bipartisan panel set up to give an in-depth report on the current state of affairs in Iraq and to offer tangible suggestions for possible further actions has convened, and now has something to say. Today, the Group met with President Bush to discuss its findings which were released in the Iraq Study Group Report. The Group is scheduled to meet with various leaders from the House and Senate over the coming week. Although much of the information has been leaked to the press throughout this week, the document has been officially excerpted by the NY Times today here.
The following is a brief summary of some of the panel's findings accompanied by some of my own thoughts:
1. ''The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.'' --Wow, not as if we didn't already now but how comforting coming from the panel, that is a GREAT start...
2. ''We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another.''
3. Recommendations:There must be re-doubled efforts to work diplomatically to aid in the reconstruction in Iraq. The United States must bring bring all countries who are interested in the development of a secure nation, and who are willing into the diplomatic discussion. As such, the panel believes that it is absolutely essential to begin talks with ALL of Iraq's neighbors. The United States must begin constructive discussions with BOTH Syria and Iran. This next section is hugely important and in my opinion, MUST NOT be overlooked by the administration.
''Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.''
The Report calls for increased efforts to stabilize the Arab-Israeli Conflict in order to ease regional tensions and provide a better platform for constructive assistance from local neighbors.
The Report calls for the US mission in Iraq to become solely one of supporting the Iraqi Army by the first quarter of 2008. If I'm not mistaken, that is what we have been attempting to do for the last two years. We want to pull out, we want to build up the army, we want to use a modified ''Vietnamization''process on Iraq...How is this goal any different? How are we going to do this? Granted the execution is unpublished and may be new, but this portion of the Report is roughly the same thing we have been hearing for months now.
''The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al-Qaida in Iraq.''
President Bush has pledged to ''act in a timely'' manner after taking the panel's suggestions under consideration. It seems as if we have heard that before. We can only hope that with the departure of Donald Rumsfeld, and the addition of Robert Gates, that this may actually be true this time.
--ajc
The following is a brief summary of some of the panel's findings accompanied by some of my own thoughts:
1. ''The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.'' --Wow, not as if we didn't already now but how comforting coming from the panel, that is a GREAT start...
2. ''We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another.''
3. Recommendations:There must be re-doubled efforts to work diplomatically to aid in the reconstruction in Iraq. The United States must bring bring all countries who are interested in the development of a secure nation, and who are willing into the diplomatic discussion. As such, the panel believes that it is absolutely essential to begin talks with ALL of Iraq's neighbors. The United States must begin constructive discussions with BOTH Syria and Iran. This next section is hugely important and in my opinion, MUST NOT be overlooked by the administration.
''Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran's nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents and terrorists in and out of Iraq.''
The Report calls for increased efforts to stabilize the Arab-Israeli Conflict in order to ease regional tensions and provide a better platform for constructive assistance from local neighbors.
The Report calls for the US mission in Iraq to become solely one of supporting the Iraqi Army by the first quarter of 2008. If I'm not mistaken, that is what we have been attempting to do for the last two years. We want to pull out, we want to build up the army, we want to use a modified ''Vietnamization''process on Iraq...How is this goal any different? How are we going to do this? Granted the execution is unpublished and may be new, but this portion of the Report is roughly the same thing we have been hearing for months now.
''The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq. At that time, U.S. combat forces in Iraq could be deployed only in units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams and in training, equipping, advising, force protection and search and rescue. Intelligence and support efforts would continue. A vital mission of those rapid reaction and special operations forces would be to undertake strikes against al-Qaida in Iraq.''
President Bush has pledged to ''act in a timely'' manner after taking the panel's suggestions under consideration. It seems as if we have heard that before. We can only hope that with the departure of Donald Rumsfeld, and the addition of Robert Gates, that this may actually be true this time.
--ajc
Goodbye Britain
As I write this, the conservative challenger to the Labour Party, David Cameron, is grilling Tony Blair in Parliament on Britian's involvement in Iraq. He argues that the British government should decide whether or not to keep British forces in Iraq "according to British national interest," without undue regard for the United States.
A recent report by the British military has set a timetable for a withdrawal of British forces by spring.
As far as I can tell, politicians in Britain are abandoning Iraq wholesale. Say goodbye to our most important ally in Iraq.
-- DAE
A recent report by the British military has set a timetable for a withdrawal of British forces by spring.
As far as I can tell, politicians in Britain are abandoning Iraq wholesale. Say goodbye to our most important ally in Iraq.
-- DAE
Note to the Pentagon: Wake Up!
Dear Joint Chiefs of Staff:
We need a serious re-evaluation of our military's position in Iraq. Now.
The military's current plan seems destined to sideline our armed forces as we continue with the "Vietnamization" of Iraq - that is, the recontruction of an Iraqi army and police force (which Rumseld stupidly dismantled shortly after the invasion) so that our own forces can be gradually removed from the country. Although Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) may be the most vocal advocate of a "phased withdrawal" of the U.S. military from Iraq, the Iraq Study Group's recently released report seems to indicate that this option may be the one most favored by the folks in Washington.
The plan hinges on the success of the Iraqi army and the increasingly powerful police force to turn the tide of the insurgency and restore a semblance of order throughout the country (or at least in Baghdad). What the administration and military fail to realize - or are deliberately ignoring - is the fact that the newly reconstituted Iraqi police force is the problem.
The police force is composed almost exclusively of Shia Iraqis - the same group of people whom the Sunni insurgents view as mortal enemies. According to this long and gruesome video by the British news service Channel 4, the Shia militia groups - most notably the Mahdi Army, Moqtada Al-Sadr's enormous paramilitary group - have turned the heavily armed and mobile Iraqi police commando units into dreaded death squads. And the Maliki government (itself composed almost exclusively of Shia Iraqis) seems powerless to stop the sectarian killings.
Suddenly the spate of suicide bomb attacks by Sunni insurgents on Iraqi police stations makes sense.
In the face of a virtual genocide, is it any wonder that the insurgents refuse to lay down arms and accept the current government?
It's time for the U.S. military to start taking a proactive role in protecting Iraqis. Let's take the fight to anyone who refuses to lay down arms, whether he's a Sunni insurgent or a police-disguised Shia militiaman. Our military cannot conduct offensive operations for a long time, but it may be long enough to restore enough stability in Iraq to entice Iran, Syria, or (hopefully) the international community to take a role in policing the country and saving the Iraqis from themselves.
-- DAE
We need a serious re-evaluation of our military's position in Iraq. Now.
The military's current plan seems destined to sideline our armed forces as we continue with the "Vietnamization" of Iraq - that is, the recontruction of an Iraqi army and police force (which Rumseld stupidly dismantled shortly after the invasion) so that our own forces can be gradually removed from the country. Although Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) may be the most vocal advocate of a "phased withdrawal" of the U.S. military from Iraq, the Iraq Study Group's recently released report seems to indicate that this option may be the one most favored by the folks in Washington.
The bloody sectarian violence of Iraq, however, is not comprable to the revolutionary conflict of Vietnam. "Vietnamization" is not going to work here.
The plan hinges on the success of the Iraqi army and the increasingly powerful police force to turn the tide of the insurgency and restore a semblance of order throughout the country (or at least in Baghdad). What the administration and military fail to realize - or are deliberately ignoring - is the fact that the newly reconstituted Iraqi police force is the problem.
The police force is composed almost exclusively of Shia Iraqis - the same group of people whom the Sunni insurgents view as mortal enemies. According to this long and gruesome video by the British news service Channel 4, the Shia militia groups - most notably the Mahdi Army, Moqtada Al-Sadr's enormous paramilitary group - have turned the heavily armed and mobile Iraqi police commando units into dreaded death squads. And the Maliki government (itself composed almost exclusively of Shia Iraqis) seems powerless to stop the sectarian killings.
Suddenly the spate of suicide bomb attacks by Sunni insurgents on Iraqi police stations makes sense.
In the face of a virtual genocide, is it any wonder that the insurgents refuse to lay down arms and accept the current government?
It's time for the U.S. military to start taking a proactive role in protecting Iraqis. Let's take the fight to anyone who refuses to lay down arms, whether he's a Sunni insurgent or a police-disguised Shia militiaman. Our military cannot conduct offensive operations for a long time, but it may be long enough to restore enough stability in Iraq to entice Iran, Syria, or (hopefully) the international community to take a role in policing the country and saving the Iraqis from themselves.
-- DAE
Tuesday, 5 December 2006
Hillary: We Have a Problem
"I think Barack Obama is the most interesting persona to appear on the political radar screen in decades. He's a walking, talking hope machine, and he may reshape American politics."
-- Republican operative, Mark McKinnon.
ajc
-- Republican operative, Mark McKinnon.
ajc
Really?
"Right now, the Iraqi Army is expected to transfer to Iraqi ground force command in early February. There's nothing I've seen to indicate that won't happen."
--U.S. Army Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of U.S.-led forces in Diyala
Sorry Colonel, but here's a couple indicators for you: Ethnic warfare? A country near civil war? Increasing sectarian violence? Thousands dying a month? A new declaration by the Pentagon nominee that we would be forced to stay in Iraq "for a long time". There are a couple of reasons for you, with all due respect, stop lying to people please?
ajc
--U.S. Army Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of U.S.-led forces in Diyala
Sorry Colonel, but here's a couple indicators for you: Ethnic warfare? A country near civil war? Increasing sectarian violence? Thousands dying a month? A new declaration by the Pentagon nominee that we would be forced to stay in Iraq "for a long time". There are a couple of reasons for you, with all due respect, stop lying to people please?
ajc
Monday, 4 December 2006
The Party of Intolerance
Much has been made of the recent elections. Either the elections represent a monumental shift in American politics or a just a result of a few bad policies (IRAQ) and election stratagems (ie focusing on NJ, et al the cost of focusing on the MO senate race too late). This election, being only one data point, may not be interesting. What is interesting, in terms of the long run, is how much the GOP loves to screw themselves up strategically. I call the GOP the party of "intolerance" not to list lefty talking points -- I happen to agree with much of the predictable argumentation about globalization and modernity meaning that we should learn to be hospitable to, rather than trying hard but failing to suppress, difference. But that's beside the point. The comforting part is how much the "GOP Base" is leading to their own party's demise.
1) the tom tancredo line on immigration: Even if you shut down the border (hint: you won't), none of the problems that you've misdiagnosed as being caused by illegal immigration (the loss of jobs/wages, education and health care systems being overburdened, crime, whatever) will be solved by them. All the GOP line will do is alienate one of the significant demographics in future of the American electorate -- Mexican Americans. Remember how bad the Southern Strategy turned out for the GOP relationship with African Americans (and correspondingly how that demographic is probably the most solidly Democratic voters)? Alas, they did not learn. The anti-immigration right loves to screw their own party and Karl Rove's strategies for winning them a long term majority.
2) The Evangelical Right: This is a little bit overblown. In 2004, Bush won a whole bunch of voters (security mom's, working class white males, etc.) because of security, it was not just Jesusland that went red. In 2006, independents voting for Dem's beat the depressed (relative to 2k4) GOP base turn out. In the long run however, only one of two outcomes will happen if the GOP ties its fortune to the Christian right. (1) less likely -- the Christian right gets its agenda through the branches, somehow beating the separation of powers and overturning the secular tradition. They'll eventually do what alienates Americans more than anything (and what led to the downfall of the traditional LBJ/FDR left) -- getting involved in other peoples business. They'll start telling Americans who to marry, what to watch on TV, etc etc. Then the GOP will lose, over and over. And then someone in the supreme court reads the constitution and realizes most of their agenda is unconstitutional. Lose a few elections, change nothing. (2) more likely: the Christian right fails to get their agenda because of separation of powers (the courts) and the fact that most people really do not like their whacky ideas. They, like many radical political movements, get alienated and apathetic from mainstream politics. At best (for the Dems), they start third parties which take away voters Ralph Nadar-style. The GOP having thrown their lot in goes away for a while as they try to find a new base.
On the whole, as much as I'd like to see it, I do not believe the evangelical right is as prominent in the GOP as many think, so I don't think the GOP will sink with that Titanic.
(3) Terrorism: Again, two possiblities. (1) less likely -- Either the GOP hardline, "kill and capture" is the only way to defeat "Islamic terrorism" line is true and the issue goes away because we win (for arguments sake lets agree with the position that Iraq was a failure in execution not a bad policy). Domestic issues, which Democrats win most polls in, become the focus. (2) more likely: their policies lead to more instability and rising threat levels, we are in a long, bloody war. The public starts asking questions like why the GOP, the party of national security, cannot actually secure the count. The GOP's intolerance to the possibility that other national security strategies besides unilateral wars of choice might be worth considering takes its toll.
This is the great part about democracy: people can only be fooled for so long. In the long run, it is not good politics that wins elections, but good policies. The quaint idea of actually caring about the "American people" and governing well, not only happens to be good for the country, it also wins elections! Now if only the Democrats could figure this out as well.
All of this is of course unsupported conjecture mixed with a dash of wishful thinking :-).
RA
1) the tom tancredo line on immigration: Even if you shut down the border (hint: you won't), none of the problems that you've misdiagnosed as being caused by illegal immigration (the loss of jobs/wages, education and health care systems being overburdened, crime, whatever) will be solved by them. All the GOP line will do is alienate one of the significant demographics in future of the American electorate -- Mexican Americans. Remember how bad the Southern Strategy turned out for the GOP relationship with African Americans (and correspondingly how that demographic is probably the most solidly Democratic voters)? Alas, they did not learn. The anti-immigration right loves to screw their own party and Karl Rove's strategies for winning them a long term majority.
2) The Evangelical Right: This is a little bit overblown. In 2004, Bush won a whole bunch of voters (security mom's, working class white males, etc.) because of security, it was not just Jesusland that went red. In 2006, independents voting for Dem's beat the depressed (relative to 2k4) GOP base turn out. In the long run however, only one of two outcomes will happen if the GOP ties its fortune to the Christian right. (1) less likely -- the Christian right gets its agenda through the branches, somehow beating the separation of powers and overturning the secular tradition. They'll eventually do what alienates Americans more than anything (and what led to the downfall of the traditional LBJ/FDR left) -- getting involved in other peoples business. They'll start telling Americans who to marry, what to watch on TV, etc etc. Then the GOP will lose, over and over. And then someone in the supreme court reads the constitution and realizes most of their agenda is unconstitutional. Lose a few elections, change nothing. (2) more likely: the Christian right fails to get their agenda because of separation of powers (the courts) and the fact that most people really do not like their whacky ideas. They, like many radical political movements, get alienated and apathetic from mainstream politics. At best (for the Dems), they start third parties which take away voters Ralph Nadar-style. The GOP having thrown their lot in goes away for a while as they try to find a new base.
On the whole, as much as I'd like to see it, I do not believe the evangelical right is as prominent in the GOP as many think, so I don't think the GOP will sink with that Titanic.
(3) Terrorism: Again, two possiblities. (1) less likely -- Either the GOP hardline, "kill and capture" is the only way to defeat "Islamic terrorism" line is true and the issue goes away because we win (for arguments sake lets agree with the position that Iraq was a failure in execution not a bad policy). Domestic issues, which Democrats win most polls in, become the focus. (2) more likely: their policies lead to more instability and rising threat levels, we are in a long, bloody war. The public starts asking questions like why the GOP, the party of national security, cannot actually secure the count. The GOP's intolerance to the possibility that other national security strategies besides unilateral wars of choice might be worth considering takes its toll.
This is the great part about democracy: people can only be fooled for so long. In the long run, it is not good politics that wins elections, but good policies. The quaint idea of actually caring about the "American people" and governing well, not only happens to be good for the country, it also wins elections! Now if only the Democrats could figure this out as well.
All of this is of course unsupported conjecture mixed with a dash of wishful thinking :-).
RA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)