Midterm elections

Remove all ads!

Ragusa! Glad to see you are posting once again!---you're always an interesting read.

I think it is important to keep in mind that the notion of 'Iraqi's' is quite hazy. There are no 'Iraqi' people being diseffected by the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, (and all the rest...); they are the Sunni, Shia, etc. That these people resort to killing one another rather than finding other means to coexist is not the fault of American policy.

 

LNT,
you're in part correct. I use the term 'Iraqis' in a geographical sense. Mesopotamians would be a better term.

However, your closing remark makes me wince. You may be well right that the US is not to blame for Sunnis attacking Shias and vice versa right now (US sponsored Shia and Kurdish militias ignored for the sake of argument). They have a free will and are all responsible and culpable for their own actions. But that doesn't mean the US are off the hook.

To me it is hard to conceive that all the slaughter today would have happened without the destruction of the Iraqi state preceding it. It was not inevitable that the Ministeries were looted with the US sitting by idle, it was not inevitable that the Iraqi army was dissolved, just as de-Baathification was not inevitable. These were decisions that were made by the US. Pulling the strings means you're responsible. And they were fatal mistakes from which the US and Mesopotamia never recovered. One shouldn't blend that part out.

Colin Powell was quite right with his pottery barn rule. You break it, you own it. But don't bother blaming the shambles for being sharp, or expensive.

 

But it is important to see that Saddam-era Iraq was not a political equilibrium---big ugly changes were coming one day. Some of that instability was foreign to blame (sanctions and such), but the real problem has always been tribal in nature.

Imagine a ball hanging by a thread: the frayed thread was going to snap one day, so the US tried to cordon the landing zone, snap the string, and then effect the rebound to one more favorable to foreign interests. Unfortunately, the people driving the ball are idiots. Also, it is unfortunate that the US handled this grand plan with a shocking degree of incompetence.

You are quite good at explaining US incompetence. I like that about you. Crazy German.

But regardless, those wacky people who live in Mesopotamia are responsible for the pre-existing situation, as well as the vast majority of the existing insanity.

If the US hadn't stepped in (with both left feet) things could be worse. With no stable internal power structure, foreign involvement was inevitable---better it be the US than Iran or Saudi Arabia.

 

I think you are being a bit melodramatic here. The Saudi reaction is not really the problem for the US, nor is Iraq really a problem for the Royal Family. The problem is Iran, and you are very correct in your feelings on that part of the thread, IMO. You and I both made an issue of how this would only benefit Iran (good standing member of the Axis of Evil) when the war was in its early stages, and events have only proven that we were right.

IMO, the grand plan was that Iran was next on the list. Unfortunatley, the US bungling of the Iraq War has put any idea of an invasion of Iran on permanent hold. America would have been smart to have stopped at the border of Afghanistan, and threatened both iraq and Iran by building up that nation and having a huge military presence on the borders. But instead, Bush decided on the "war of choice", which left evryone (including the Saudis) in a difficult place.

I would not be surprised if Iran was the real problem behind much of what the US faces in Iraq. Instead, Bush continues his lame assertion that Al-Qaeda is really behind the problem in Iraq. Look at this exchange:

If Bush was not the president of the most powerful nation, people would be rolling on the floor laughing. But instead it is very serious that this man is playing at one of two things:

1 - Using the Al-Qaeda ploy for purely political effect, which is rapidly wearing off. Or worse...

2 - He really has no grasp of what's really going on in Iraq. But I tend to believe the former, since it used to play well. But that was 2 years ago...and things have changed.

If it were not for the problems in Iraq, the bullies in Iran would not be playing games with us now, and instead they would be on notice.

[ December 07, 2006, 01:01: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

LNT

Quite correct, but beside the point. Who triggered the events that led to the current situation? Well meant can't trump well done.

For me it is not about US incompetence. There was US competence. It was willfully ignored. Even so, there was doubt that the Iraq war could possibly have been won even with better planning (check the link at the bottom). It was a silly idea to begin with. What's left is massive incompetence from the top, covered up with ... state secrets privilege? That's the point I would focus on, not those ingrateful Iraqis or the nasty Iranians who just won't play fair. Bush told them to bring it on. They delivered.
It's a pity that neither Bush nor his subordinates but the US as a whole will have to pay the bill. As Bush represents the US, he acts for the US, he isn't Commander in Chief because that's such a spiffy word. It wasn't Bush's private army that ****ed up Iraq, but the US armed forces under orders of the President of the United States of America. You can't change that, and you can't change the Iraqis or the Iranians.

It's very simple. Bush's policies have damaged the US. Even whith Bush gone, it will require a great deal of hard effort on side of the US to rebuild trust.

It has made me sick watching the US being driven into the quicksand in slow motion, unable to do anything about it but pointing it out. It's worth recalling: From *global support* in late 2001 to the US in to a situation with no real allies or options and a hugely diminished influence over the whole ME region. Wow. That is not US incompetence but the incompetence in the realm of responsibility of the decider who decided the decisions deciding the course to disaster. He would make a suitable object for your annoyance. Works for me.

Chandos,

Bringing allies in an untenable position, repeatedly and with disregard, is a way to lose them. The US already have forfeited most of the leverage they once had. It will be much worse without (as opposed to inspite of) allies. I think the Saudi reaction is a point the US should regard as important.

That is correct. But it is self inflicted. Here's why:

After 911 Iran *cooperated* with the US in Afghanistan, helping strongly to make possible the US victory there. They also offered re-establishment of diplomatic relations. They were turned down. The US could have Iran on their friendly side, but that wasn't enough for the ideologues for whom it needed to be unconditional surrender, aka 'regime change'. They thought themselves so strong as to be able to refuse such a rare opportunity because they expected to get it all later. So why be happy with less?

That's the repeating pattern of neo-con hubris, considering superior military strength and technology as the hardware fix for political (software) problems. Everything challenging their vision of 'reshaping the Middle East' was ignored as timid, status-quo oriented 'oldthink', like this: 1999 US War Games Predicted Iraqi Chaos.

There are people who think chaos was the original plan, but I think they're either dreaming up after the fact justifications or giving the neo-cons undue credit, or both. The neo-cons were dead earnest when they spoke of being greeted with flowers. They were that naive.

[ December 05, 2006, 15:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa, I can only admire someone who can refer to the Peace of Westphalia (1648)** in relation to our current dilemma. Can you say "defenestration"? Perhaps that's the answer to our problem. Partially answered by the election, maybe.

Chandos, I certainly can't agree with your assertion that the neo-cons are "finished". They still have money, determination, and a program. They have lost a battle, not the war. There's still more than a lot of work to be done before we can start putting monuments on their graves.

A couple of years back, when Bush was still in his "Mission Accomplished" phase, one of his close advisers, with sublime arrogance, said something like, "We create our own Reality. And by the time you've caught up with that Reality, we'll have created yet another one." The implication being that we poor mortals could never keep up with their glorious paradigm. A number of posters, including me, suggested that Reality might take a different view--I referred to Nemesis, the ancient goddess who strikes down the overproud. And that is what has happened, with or without heavenly assistance.

And Bush right now is behaving like a man who's been struck by a thunderbolt, reeling from country to country, trying--vainly--to regain control of events, his certainties in tatters. I think the question of the moment is: How quietly will he accept the judgment of reality?

(**For anyone wanting to know more about that fascinating topic, The Peace of Westphalia, I recommend "The Thirty Years War", by C.V. Wedgwood. The Peace is in the last chapter.)

 

Cernak,
one of the guiding motive behind Westphalia was pragmatism. After thirty years of carnage it was clear that one third of the population of Germany died in vain. The guiding motive was a result of the stunning insight that, inevitably, peace you have to make with the enemy.

But for those who equal negotiating with *evil* and appeasement that's corrupted 'oldthink'. Thinking in manichean categories does not permit solutions other than the unconditional surrender of the enemy, or your own defeat. I doubt one does his country a favour arguing in such a way, much less making such a nonsense official policy. The results speak for themselves.

The neo-cons are obsessed with 'virtue'. For them US military superiority and the RMA promised the quick, easy and cheap solution to solve the moral dilemma of how to deal with nasty people. The 'bad guys' from Baghdad to Beirut, Theran and Riyadh, were supposed to be swept away in a sterile high-tech Blitzkrieg, making way for a new order, the sweeping creative destruction the likes of Michael Ledeen dreamed of. Well, it didn't work out that way.

The coward part is that they simply delegated the moral dilemma down to the military. So instead of having to dirty themselves by negotiating with people they don't like, make decisions themselves (as their pay grade strongly suggests), they send out kids with a rifle to kill and sort it out. The purifying fires of war make dispensable compromising diplomacy. I presume if you're a Jacobin revolutionary there is no other way.

A good bloodletting would also morally invigorate the American collective psyche, re-invoking the 'virtues' that won WW-II (no kidding, iirc neo-con court-historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote that in one of his countless op-eds). In that sense, US casualties are a great thing. So what is that idiot Kevin Tillman whining about? The death of his brother? Trifles! Friendly fire or not, cover-up or not - his dead serves a higher purpose by justifying the war And besides, 3.500 or so casualties are a joke compared to the casualty figures of the American civil war I'd like to see him say that in a speech in front of Iraq veterans.

I don't know, 'virtue' as I understand it would include leadership by example on part of the elite, seeing them volunteer for military service. Well, they still have other priorities I guess. If you watch at the frenzied attempts (along the line 'coward ISG surrenders to islamic jackboot') by the neo-cons to smear the ISG now, it should be clear that they, despite the pounding they took, will not let go easily.

Andrew J. Bacevich made a good point about the mess in Iraq.

 

I can only agree, Ragusa.

The Peace of Westphalia concluded not just the Thirty Years War, but a century of the most vicious, ruinous conflict that Europe has ever seen, including the wars of the 20th century. In 1648 Catholics and Protestants finally realized that neither could destroy the other, and an uneasy peace was negotiated. although ill-feeling continued to fester for more than another hundred years.

True Believers do not want to compromise, even when bludgeoned into insensibility. In general, they would rather die; and only when events have forced such people from power is negotiation possible. Consider Napoleon. Having lost the Grand Armee in Russia in 1812, having lost all Central Europe at Leipzig in 1813, with, literally, all of Europe invading France from every direction, with his armies destroyed, he was offered peace. He would remain Emperor of France. He refused. "Give up Holland and Italy. They are part of France!" So he fought on, to inevitable defeat and ruin. The fact that Napoleon's True Belief was in himself and in his right to rule everyone is irrelevant. In 1814 he acted as a True Believer, not as a calculating politician. What sensible person wouldn't rather be Emperor of France than Emperor of Elba? In just the same manner Philiip II ruined Spain and reduced her to a third rate power with his mad desire to destroy the Protestants in the Netherlands and in England. All the treasure of the New World, and more, was poured into this scheme. Cromwell in England, by his intolerant rule, set back the cause of reform by 180 years. Hitler broke so many agreements to advance his True Belief that negotiation ceased to be an option for him.

Bush and the people around him also claim to be True Believers, and have behaved like it for several years. Can they now yield to great pressure and negotiate? Or will they yield to their own inclinations to "stay the course"?

These people thought they could "win with spin", that manipulation of the news had some sort of identity with the events that were being manipulated, and that these events could therefore be ignored. This foolishness has created the present perilous situation, in which events have gone completely out of our control, possibly out of anyone's control. Bush is still being coy about whether he will actually act on any of the bi-partisan commitee's recommendations.

I suppose if things continue to spiral downward, impeachment will become a real possibility, rather than just a talking point, but I believe events will have to be worse than they already are for that to happen. Considering the state that things are already in, I leave "worse" to your imagination.

I think Ragusa's comments on the neo-con mindset are very much to the point.

 

He has no choice. But I agree that if he did, then it would be very difficult to get him to "change the course" in Iraq. But the situation is now beyond his control; he can no longer manipulate either the events (if he ever could), nor the public's perception of those events (which he once could manipulate). He is now almost nothing more than a disgruntled bystander to his own creation. Events have clearly moved beyond him and the American neocon policy makers in which he had placed his faith.

 

Chandos,
the decider is still the decider who ... decides. Some eerie stories about by what criteria:

There are things he doesn't want to hear, and will not hear as a result of that. Dissent in the decider causes suspicion of defaitism and illoyalty. I expect him to deal with the ISG's report in a similar way: 'Sounds wrong.' And Cheney will nod and say with gravitas: 'Damn' right!'

 

@ Chan

Sadly, I disagree. He's not up for reelection. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. Much like the last 6 years, it would seem. I believe he sees his administration as a parallel to Trumans, only in the sense that his current low approval rating doesn't matter because history will view him as brave, strong and resolute.

I'm certain he'll do whatever he wants to, in the end. He'll solicit advice from "experts," he'll publicly acknowledge "some good ideas for how to move Iraq forward," he'll skirt around the edges and do just enough to be able to claim that he followed the recommendations without any actual intention to really follow them (re: signing statements) and then when this "new push" ultimately fails, he'll blame the people doing the suggesting and wash his hands of the disaster that has become Iraq.

Make no mistake: no one is forcing Bush's hand here. Who could? Reality has never been a consideration in his policy these past six years, we have no reason to believe it's starting to now that he doesn't have to please the voters anymore. If Cheney were going to run for President, that would be a different story. All he'll do from this point on is look for ways to put the blame for the failure on someone else at a miserable attempt to protect his legacy.

/end cynical @$$hole

 

It's very interesting that you should bring that up, because:

That would be Section 8, Clause 11, in case you wish to check.

It seems that many, even here in America, have not looked at the Constitution lately. The president is not the "decider," as many seem to believe. It is Congress that decides. And, unless Bush has a very large private bank account, and if congress decides to no longer fund the war in Iraq...

And...

It would seem that other way around, that it is the Saudis holding the knife:

I would not be surprised if this was the reason why the American government has turned a deaf ear to the Iraq Study Group, which is also strongly opposed by the Saudis. I think they have the "knife to the American throat," and it would help to explain a great deal of reluctance on the part of both parties to withdraw quickly from the no win situation in Iraq, even though most Americans support the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16179088/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16160872/

[ December 13, 2006, 07:46: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos,
I agree with you on the constutional issue. The problem I wanted to point out is that the fight about Bush's proclaimed 'unitary executive' powers is not decided. He continues with his signing statements for instance.

If he feels it is urgent for the US to attack Iran because after him no president would do it, he will order an attack, no matter what the constitution sais.

In his view he *is* the decider, and as long as nobody impeaches him, or as long as the supreme court doesn't deconstruct his usurped powers, that is not going to change. Iirc 'unitary executive' theory holds that the president if he feels so can ignore the supreme court on issues of his implied, inherent or imaginary powers. In that sense, fighting the 'unitary executive branch' theory should be priority number one for every responsible US politician - at the moment and for the next two years.

In the hands of a Great and Wise man it would perhaps make for a wonderful benevolent dictatorship, but sadly, all you got is Bush, and his chancellor Darth Cheney.

 

Well, that is a real danger. It is true that he can act much faster than the Congress or the people can react. But I really was not arguing American internal politics, as I was the situation on the ground in Iraq. The events there have moved way beyond Bush's control, and as I tried to point out, the control (claimed progress) he insisted he had, was only imaginary; he was blowing happy gas at the American people - with help of a friendly media - and the gas finally ran out, and the media turned hostile. At this point, it is Bush who is scrambling to find "a new approach" in Iraq. But the fool believes that the war is still "winnable." In that sense, I agree with you.

 

Chandos, I am so sorry to disagree with you. I do wish the country would rise up and say "You've broken the Constitution! Out with you!" It's not going to happen. That is the tragedy of all this. That the Constitution is no longer a mighty instrument, broken at one's peril, but rather, a fragile shield, barely intact, it has been so scraped at.

If Bush had triumphed, I believe he would have been quite willing to scrap it, with the usual specious excuses. Fortunately, he has failed, and failed totally, which does not mean he won't try another roll of the dice, to our disadvantage. Or that some more clever person, reading the signs, might accomplish what he has failed to do.

But please don't let my pessimism slow you down, Chandos. Stressing the importance of the Constitution can hardly be a bad thing. Perhaps you'll even make a few converts.

 

That is the point. While the constitutionality of Bush's rule is indeed a crucial issue, popular understanding is limited. It is a highly complex matter. It doesn't pull. If made the issue for impeachment, it will die a death of a thousand cuts in right-wing talkshows, Op-Eds, talk-radio and comments.
For the hardcore Republicans an impeachment against Bush will be like a cheap legal trick of a trail lawyer, at least that's how it will be sold to them. And the right-wing drumbeat will be persistent enough to saw doubt where possible. The more vocal and overtly gleeful democrats (whose glee would be absolutely understandable) would only confirm them in this view.

The US would be there where GOP politicos want to have them: No factual public discourse but an endless and pointless (fair and ballanced) he-shaid/ she-said bickering - and frustrated voters making their decision based on primary loyalties (like religion), instinct (like xenophobia/ homophobia) or sympathy - the dirty little ingrediences that make wedge politics work.

An impeachment process would again deepen the rift between groups in an already polarised society. I think this is undesirable. Even though it would be some late justice considering on what the GOP ran their impeachment campaign against Clinton. Compared to Bush's actions, Clinton's frollicking around was a joke.

What the US lack today is a moderate middle *represented in politics* by moderate, pragmatic, consensus-seeking and unideological people, a common sense core - the very thing that was killed mainly by GOP wedge politics since the 1980s. The GOP as a result of that has drifted to the right, rather than that the Dems drifted to the left. IMO there needs to be a return to civility in politics, away from attack politics. After all there are some crucial issues at stake. If something like that is ever to re-emerge, an impeachment process will be destructive.

 

That's very true, and while the Constitution has suffered abuse at the hands of Bush, popular understanding of it is limited because the media ignored much of "how" the war on terror was put in place. To be sure there was almost a kind of emotional response - "don't tell us what you are doing, just bring back the heads of the terrorists," right after 9/11 on the part of the public. They thought they were getting the culprits in exchange. Instead, they got the war in Iraq, with all its failures.

Hardly anyone gave two thoughts to the Constitution when Bush was on a roll. Now that he has failed, the Constitution has become the "rediscovered" document by the media. During this last year, I think I have heard more from them about the Constitution, than I have in my entire life. Nevertheless, I'm really convinced that this last election saved the Constitution. If the Democrats wish to hold up the Constitution (which by rights Bush should be held accountable for) they will be forced to "walk-the-talk," so to speak. If they use it only for political purposes, then we will all be back at square one.

Bush's oath requires him to uphold and defend the Constitution, which he has not. Crafting an impeachment case would only create a constitutional crisis, in my opinion - as you point out, "it is a very complex issue." It would be far better for the Dems to liveup to the spirit of the document with heavy oversight and accountability during Bush's last two years. The country would fare much better.