Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Iraq and American Foreign Policy Alternatives
Iraq and American Foreign Policy Alternatives
The Clarion Content has been deliberately (largely) withholding comment on United States foreign policy actions in Iraq. This is because it was hoped that the Clarion would be able to frame its initial commentary about Iraq within the context of a debate about a larger foreign policy rework that ought to be undertaken. The Clarion still fully intends to sponsor that discussion: that the United States needs to fundamentally reconsider its foreign policy. We are indebted to friends of the Clarion for helping provide the twin themes of that rework, transparency and consistency. This piece will not delve into that meatier foreign policy material. Ultimately, the publisher of the Clarion could not refrain from commenting on pontification about Iraq in Washington, DC, circa June 2006.
The point that must be made today is simply, Iraq is a mess, and the Democratic Party offers no real policy alternative from the Administration. It is taken as fact herein that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfolwitz, et. al. have screwed the pooch in Iraq. While the Clarion never held much hope that the Democrats could provide an alternative on Iraq, disheartened as we were by the Kerry nomination and campaign of 2004, this week past has shown just how completely out of touch with popular sentiment the Democrats are. It is one thing for Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden and Hillary to meander toward what they perceive as the center, trying to position for a general election, rather than the primaries, it is repugnant, but to be expected. (1) But for the Democratic party in general, when one of its lefties, like Carl Levin, makes the kind of statements he did this week, it says to the liberty focused liberals, the genuine supporters of human rights, that even on the left edge of the big tent that is the Democratic party, there is no place for us anymore. (2)
This week the Senate voted down two resolutions on the Iraq War, one with a binding deadline for the withdrawal of troops, one recommending a troop reduction without a binding deadline. Senate Democrats offered two resolutions rather than one, to highlight and underline their spineless inability to resist/alter/critique the Administration’s Iraq policy.
This week also saw General G.W. Casey, Jr. (Commander US Forces Iraq) broach discussion of a drawdown of the number of personnel of the United States Armed Forces stationed in Iraq by as much as half. The Clarion understands the argument that a firm, publicly announced deadline for the withdrawal of troops might be counterproductive. The Clarion is glad to hear General Casey suggesting troop drawdowns. (However politically motivated—or at least on behalf of, the Commander-in-Chief this talk might be.) What is horrifying and frustrating in light of this week's events and comments is that neither of the two political parties represented in national office in Washington, DC has any sense that invading Iraq was a massive mistake.
It is not news to say that the Bush administration does not think invading Iraq was a mistake. Among the many, many sellouts of the 2004 Kerry campaign was the unwillingness to say invading Iraq was a huge mistake. (3) It was as disingenuous as Bill Clinton saying he didn’t inhale, though about a matter of far greater consequence. What is so disturbing is that two years on, outside of John Murtha’s district, one can’t find a Democratic politician with the common sense and understanding enough to say invading Iraq was a titanic mistake.
The Clarion understands that one can’t pretend this mistake didn’t happen. The Clarion further understands and accepts that even as an advocate outside the policy-making apparatus, one has to advocate action on the basis of where things stand now. There is no rewind. But when Democrats in positions of power and prestige like senior party Armed Service Committee member, Carl Levin, are making comments like, “For heaven's sake, we liberated that country. We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable," it is obvious that they just don’t get it. (The Senator was commenting on the new Iraqi Prime Minister’s recently mooted peace plan.)
Link to an article with Senator Levin's comments
Earth to Senator Levin: America liberated Kuwait under George Bush I, after Iraq and Saddam Hussein invaded. (4) Under George Bush II, America invaded Iraq. The fiction that Americans were somehow Iraq’s liberators and that troops would somehow be greeted with roses in the streets was promulgated by the administration's most dastardly members, Cheney, et al. (5) Senator Levin, where have you been during the last umpteen months of your committee’s meetings? Has the insurgency not put paid to some sense that America was a liberator? All but the client state America is propping up see America as an invader, not a liberator. Thousands of innocent bystanders have been killed by the United States invasion. Senator, do you think their families see American troops as liberators? For all the heroic individual actions of countless United States servicemen, the nature of the mission has made America the bad guy. The anecdotal evidence of the people on the ground, even in the United States military, is that 90% of the resistance America is facing is local, Iraqis, not foreign jihadists.
It is a Vietnam redux in different rhetorical clothing. Instead of fighting the amorphous rhetorical enemy of Communism, America is fighting the amorphous rhetorical enemy of Terrorism. The Iraqis, like the vast majority of the Vietnamese, are fighting a foreign invader. Vietnam continued the fight throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s, vs. France, then on through 1960’s and 1970’s until America finally gave up. (6) The fact that both of the political parties with any power in Washington either don’t see or choose to ignore this underlying reality is deeply disturbing. The American people want out of Iraq for just this very reason, the same rationale that eventually turned the majority of the American public against the Vietnam War. Americans want to be liberators not conquerors. When they have cottoned on to it, the American people have resisted the neo-colonialist urge of the American elite. Unfortunately, it looks quite certain that in 2008 both major parties will offer candidates who support paternalistic, jingoistic, aggressively interventionist foreign policy platforms.
A deadline for the withdrawal of most (7) American forces from Iraq is not an answer. America needs to make an admission that the entire invasion was an epic mistake based on a false premise, regardless of however evil Saddam Hussein was. Further, America needs to state unequivocally that it rejects the notion of pre-emptive War. (8)
NOTES
(1) The two Joe’s, of the three of them, might even honestly believe what they are saying.
(2) Not that elements sponsoring multiculturalism in the guise of pseudo-fascist-Political Correctness hadn’t been pushing us in that direction anyway.
(3) The 2004 campaign was quite literally fought over the argument of whether America would have won Vietnam, if it had stuck it out. Literally, “Kerry quit on Vietnam, just like he was going to quit on Iraq” was the subtext of the Republican campaign. Candidate Kerry, rather than skewer them with their own argument, “The Republicans never wanted to quit Vietnam, just like they will never want to quit Iraq.” instead, played directly into their hands insisting he wasn’t going to quit Iraq.
(4) But then after liberating Kuwait, America subsequently failed to continue on into Iraq. This was one of the primary reasons American troops, this time, were greeted with suspicion rather than joy by the Shi’ite majority of Iraq. George Bush (I) let them dangle in the wind, let Saddam kill thousands more of them putting down a revolt attempt, after America encouraged them to rise up in resistance.
(5) For a sense of how far gone the Democrats are in terms of the real debate, note that they are using the Administration’s propaganda as the baseline for discussion.
(6) Pray, pray, pray American kids don’t fight for decades in Iraq. Every limb lost is one too many. And please take note that less than thirty years after the last colonialist invader left Vietnamese soil, they are quite literally knocking down American doors to join its economic clubs, play the game by its economic rules. (Primarily via membership in the World Trade Organization and reducing bilateral tariffs.)
(7) Neither Democrats or Republican are in ANY WAY proposing to withdraw all United States forces. Both sides see Iraq becoming a permanent outpost for at least some United States troops.
(8) When Dick Cheney says the Democrats position, “in effect, validates the terrorist strategy” he is only correct if one accepts his and the administration’s underlying rational for invading Iraq. If one is sharp enough to distinguish that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on America of September 11, 2001 and that Iraq had no offensive weapons of mass destruction, then withdrawal becomes the admission of a terrible, tragic mistake by the Bush Administration, not a validation of terrorist strategy. To pretend invading Iraq was not an epochal mistake, to continue supporting a client state there, to maintain an occupying force, this is what plays into the hands of nihilistic, no hope, jihadists. …Cheney’s statement was made in a CNN interview.
Links
Philadelphia Inquirer 6/23/06
Hartford Courant 6/26/06 by David Lightman, Washington Bureau Chief
by Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press in the San Jose Mercury News 6/23/06
by Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times found in the Seattle Times 6/26/06
by Bushra Juhi of the Associated Press in the Terra Haute Tribune Star 6/27/06
The Clarion Content has been deliberately (largely) withholding comment on United States foreign policy actions in Iraq. This is because it was hoped that the Clarion would be able to frame its initial commentary about Iraq within the context of a debate about a larger foreign policy rework that ought to be undertaken. The Clarion still fully intends to sponsor that discussion: that the United States needs to fundamentally reconsider its foreign policy. We are indebted to friends of the Clarion for helping provide the twin themes of that rework, transparency and consistency. This piece will not delve into that meatier foreign policy material. Ultimately, the publisher of the Clarion could not refrain from commenting on pontification about Iraq in Washington, DC, circa June 2006.
The point that must be made today is simply, Iraq is a mess, and the Democratic Party offers no real policy alternative from the Administration. It is taken as fact herein that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfolwitz, et. al. have screwed the pooch in Iraq. While the Clarion never held much hope that the Democrats could provide an alternative on Iraq, disheartened as we were by the Kerry nomination and campaign of 2004, this week past has shown just how completely out of touch with popular sentiment the Democrats are. It is one thing for Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden and Hillary to meander toward what they perceive as the center, trying to position for a general election, rather than the primaries, it is repugnant, but to be expected. (1) But for the Democratic party in general, when one of its lefties, like Carl Levin, makes the kind of statements he did this week, it says to the liberty focused liberals, the genuine supporters of human rights, that even on the left edge of the big tent that is the Democratic party, there is no place for us anymore. (2)
This week the Senate voted down two resolutions on the Iraq War, one with a binding deadline for the withdrawal of troops, one recommending a troop reduction without a binding deadline. Senate Democrats offered two resolutions rather than one, to highlight and underline their spineless inability to resist/alter/critique the Administration’s Iraq policy.
This week also saw General G.W. Casey, Jr. (Commander US Forces Iraq) broach discussion of a drawdown of the number of personnel of the United States Armed Forces stationed in Iraq by as much as half. The Clarion understands the argument that a firm, publicly announced deadline for the withdrawal of troops might be counterproductive. The Clarion is glad to hear General Casey suggesting troop drawdowns. (However politically motivated—or at least on behalf of, the Commander-in-Chief this talk might be.) What is horrifying and frustrating in light of this week's events and comments is that neither of the two political parties represented in national office in Washington, DC has any sense that invading Iraq was a massive mistake.
It is not news to say that the Bush administration does not think invading Iraq was a mistake. Among the many, many sellouts of the 2004 Kerry campaign was the unwillingness to say invading Iraq was a huge mistake. (3) It was as disingenuous as Bill Clinton saying he didn’t inhale, though about a matter of far greater consequence. What is so disturbing is that two years on, outside of John Murtha’s district, one can’t find a Democratic politician with the common sense and understanding enough to say invading Iraq was a titanic mistake.
The Clarion understands that one can’t pretend this mistake didn’t happen. The Clarion further understands and accepts that even as an advocate outside the policy-making apparatus, one has to advocate action on the basis of where things stand now. There is no rewind. But when Democrats in positions of power and prestige like senior party Armed Service Committee member, Carl Levin, are making comments like, “For heaven's sake, we liberated that country. We got rid of a horrific dictator. We've paid a tremendous price. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable," it is obvious that they just don’t get it. (The Senator was commenting on the new Iraqi Prime Minister’s recently mooted peace plan.)
Link to an article with Senator Levin's comments
Earth to Senator Levin: America liberated Kuwait under George Bush I, after Iraq and Saddam Hussein invaded. (4) Under George Bush II, America invaded Iraq. The fiction that Americans were somehow Iraq’s liberators and that troops would somehow be greeted with roses in the streets was promulgated by the administration's most dastardly members, Cheney, et al. (5) Senator Levin, where have you been during the last umpteen months of your committee’s meetings? Has the insurgency not put paid to some sense that America was a liberator? All but the client state America is propping up see America as an invader, not a liberator. Thousands of innocent bystanders have been killed by the United States invasion. Senator, do you think their families see American troops as liberators? For all the heroic individual actions of countless United States servicemen, the nature of the mission has made America the bad guy. The anecdotal evidence of the people on the ground, even in the United States military, is that 90% of the resistance America is facing is local, Iraqis, not foreign jihadists.
It is a Vietnam redux in different rhetorical clothing. Instead of fighting the amorphous rhetorical enemy of Communism, America is fighting the amorphous rhetorical enemy of Terrorism. The Iraqis, like the vast majority of the Vietnamese, are fighting a foreign invader. Vietnam continued the fight throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s, vs. France, then on through 1960’s and 1970’s until America finally gave up. (6) The fact that both of the political parties with any power in Washington either don’t see or choose to ignore this underlying reality is deeply disturbing. The American people want out of Iraq for just this very reason, the same rationale that eventually turned the majority of the American public against the Vietnam War. Americans want to be liberators not conquerors. When they have cottoned on to it, the American people have resisted the neo-colonialist urge of the American elite. Unfortunately, it looks quite certain that in 2008 both major parties will offer candidates who support paternalistic, jingoistic, aggressively interventionist foreign policy platforms.
A deadline for the withdrawal of most (7) American forces from Iraq is not an answer. America needs to make an admission that the entire invasion was an epic mistake based on a false premise, regardless of however evil Saddam Hussein was. Further, America needs to state unequivocally that it rejects the notion of pre-emptive War. (8)
NOTES
(1) The two Joe’s, of the three of them, might even honestly believe what they are saying.
(2) Not that elements sponsoring multiculturalism in the guise of pseudo-fascist-Political Correctness hadn’t been pushing us in that direction anyway.
(3) The 2004 campaign was quite literally fought over the argument of whether America would have won Vietnam, if it had stuck it out. Literally, “Kerry quit on Vietnam, just like he was going to quit on Iraq” was the subtext of the Republican campaign. Candidate Kerry, rather than skewer them with their own argument, “The Republicans never wanted to quit Vietnam, just like they will never want to quit Iraq.” instead, played directly into their hands insisting he wasn’t going to quit Iraq.
(4) But then after liberating Kuwait, America subsequently failed to continue on into Iraq. This was one of the primary reasons American troops, this time, were greeted with suspicion rather than joy by the Shi’ite majority of Iraq. George Bush (I) let them dangle in the wind, let Saddam kill thousands more of them putting down a revolt attempt, after America encouraged them to rise up in resistance.
(5) For a sense of how far gone the Democrats are in terms of the real debate, note that they are using the Administration’s propaganda as the baseline for discussion.
(6) Pray, pray, pray American kids don’t fight for decades in Iraq. Every limb lost is one too many. And please take note that less than thirty years after the last colonialist invader left Vietnamese soil, they are quite literally knocking down American doors to join its economic clubs, play the game by its economic rules. (Primarily via membership in the World Trade Organization and reducing bilateral tariffs.)
(7) Neither Democrats or Republican are in ANY WAY proposing to withdraw all United States forces. Both sides see Iraq becoming a permanent outpost for at least some United States troops.
(8) When Dick Cheney says the Democrats position, “in effect, validates the terrorist strategy” he is only correct if one accepts his and the administration’s underlying rational for invading Iraq. If one is sharp enough to distinguish that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on America of September 11, 2001 and that Iraq had no offensive weapons of mass destruction, then withdrawal becomes the admission of a terrible, tragic mistake by the Bush Administration, not a validation of terrorist strategy. To pretend invading Iraq was not an epochal mistake, to continue supporting a client state there, to maintain an occupying force, this is what plays into the hands of nihilistic, no hope, jihadists. …Cheney’s statement was made in a CNN interview.
Links
Philadelphia Inquirer 6/23/06
Hartford Courant 6/26/06 by David Lightman, Washington Bureau Chief
by Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press in the San Jose Mercury News 6/23/06
by Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times found in the Seattle Times 6/26/06
by Bushra Juhi of the Associated Press in the Terra Haute Tribune Star 6/27/06
Labels: Middle East, Politics
Comments:
Post a Comment
