In yesterday’s Senate hearings, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker made their case for an unspecified further number of Friedman units to give the Surge a chance to work. McCain played the expected role of cheerleader, Clinton and Obama at least showed marked impatience, but the one senator who actually spoke truth to (and from) power was Russ Feingold, as reported in The Nation (but not, so far as I can find, in the Washington Post):
Telling it like it is! Mostly. Frankly, I’m not sure I share his optimism WRT a post-occupation Iraq. If we pull out now, I think, there will be civil war. If we pull out a year from now, there will be civil war. If we pull out ten years from now, there will be civil war. It’s something they just have to get through. Otherwise, however, I can find nothing at all in his speech to gainsay. Can you?
If, as you and others have said, whether we pull out in one year, five, years, or ten years, civil war will occur, then there’s IMO no logic in not getting out now; just rip off the bandaid and be done with it. We have to leave sometime, now’s as good a time as any, before anyone else gets killed. I believe nothing we do will stabilize the situation, but our presence will almost certainly make things worse. My position is we **should ** leave precipitously, and with haste and abandon.
And a big Dick Cheney Raspberry* to John McCain (or anyone on his side) if he tries to pretend that their desire to leave is a reason to not vote for them.
First, forget the idea that Bush and Co. will do anything about reducing our troop presence in Iraq. Nothing will change there until next January when we have a Democrat in the White House.
However, I think it’s a mistake to simply start pulling our troops out, and making our mess the responsibility of Iraq’s neighbors, Turkey, Syria, et al, as Feingold states, without their willing consent. I hope that when we start this process, that we’re able to coordinate a coalition of support that will work towards everyone in the region’s best interest, not just our own. It’s what we should’ve been doing all along, and we might’ve had this crap wrapped up by now, with just a few U.N. Peace-keeping forces in place.
How could that possibly be done ? We’ve thrown away our moral and political capital; who’s going to want to help us ? Who’s going to believe that anything we propose is in the region’s best interest, or that we have any concern for any one’s interests but our own ?
In other words, what makes you think we could get a response beyond a more polite version of “go to hell” ? It’s not like anyone but us, Israel, and Blair wanted this war and occupation in the first place; no one else has, or is going to feel any responsibility for it.
The Guardian claims to have acquired a confidential draft agreement between the U.S. and Iraqi governments providing for an open-ended U.S. military presence.
Legally, I don’t see how the next POTUS would be bound by that agreement in any way; diplomatically, however . . .
Much as I love ol’ Russ (and I do - I still remember some of his original campaign commercials!) I think that bit was pandering. Most of the slow thinkers believe that AlQ is the scariest boogeyman ever - so, might as well use that to indicate a real threat.
Iraq is a mess. There is no solution. If we stay we will continue to spend huge amounts of money and lose American lives and maybe, just maybe, prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state that falls into an even bloodier civil war. It could take decades to accomplish this. If we leave, Iraq will become a failed state that falls into a bloodier civil war. The questions are, if we stay is there any real chance to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state that falls into a civil war and will it be worth the costs to have that chance?
Instead of having a debate about that, we have two sides arguing in ways that strain reality. One side always argues we have just turned a corner in Iraq and things are going to be better soon. The other side always argues that it was a mistake to in the first place*, and that if we leave things will get better or at least not get any worse.
Answering the questions in the first paragraph is hard because it forces to ask all kinds of questions we are uncomfortable with:
Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi life?
How much American money is it worth to prevent a civil war in another country?
Are we willing to put our national security at risk to help rebuild a country whose infrastructure and government we destroyed?
Are we willing to help rebuild a country whose infrastructure and government we destroyed if that country will not be a close ally for long after we rebuild it?
What responsibility to do we owe to the people of country that we invaded and whose infrastructure and government we destroyed?
Is it better to have a low level civil war (at the cost of American lives) that lasts for years or allow a country to fail into a full scale civil war?
There no good answer for Iraq. No matter what we do innocent people will die.
I agree. It was a mistake. I said so at the time of the invasion, but that is irrelevant now.
It could be done by someone who’s actually willing to ask for help, unlike Bully Bush who told everyone to fuck off, we can handle this ourselves. We can’t. And if, as Russ Feingold says, it’s going to land on Turkey and Syria “to decide if Iraqi instability is really in their interests,” don’t you think it would be a better idea to ask for their help rather than dumping our shit in their laps? How will doing that not piss them off and further alienate them from us?
Of course they don’t feel any responsibility for it, and that’s the point. Feingold is basically calling for us to make it their responsibility by mere virtue of the fact that Iraq is their neighbor, so it’s in their best interest to want stability there. Well yeah, it is in their best interest. It’s in the whole damn world’s best interest. So let’s get them to the table and ask for their support in stabilizing the region for the good of everyone.
I honestly believe that many of these players would be willing to do so if someone other than Bully Bush asked them to.
Bush: “Please help.”
Turkey, Syria, et al: “Go fuck yourself.”
Obama: “Please help.”
Turkey, Syria, et al: “What do you need?”
That’s a nice thought, but now you’re putting the USA’s security (or at least armed forces) at the mercy of Iraq and its neighbors, instead of just Iraq.
So, sucks all around, but giving even more nations a vote in what the USA does next just seems like a bad idea. Hell, look what’s happening with just Iraq getting to pull the strings on US forces.
The latter is better. Judging by the experience of Vietnam, the civil war and aftermath can be horrible, but in the long run the country will still be better off than if we had stayed in.
Uhm, no I’m not; Russ Feingold is. And he’s suggesting we do so by forcing their hand. I say that’s a bullshit way to go about working with our allies.
What, you think they shouldn’t have a say in what goes on their own backyards? You want to leave it up to them to handle in ways we might not find acceptable? You want us to lose all control as to what they decide to do about what Feingold says is “really in their interests”?
Seriously? You think that’s better than getting their cooperation?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Feingold is suggesting just dropping it and leaving, right? I’m not saying anything about whether or not it’s a nice thing to do for/to our allies, I’m saying that having even MORE countries decide how long US forces are stuck in Iraq is a bad idea.
If someone goes to them and says “We’d like you to take over helping out this shitstorm we’ve started, although if you don’t want to I guess our guys will have to be the ones getting shot at” I think I can see how things will end up.
That seems to be exactly what Feingold is suggesting. And I’m not saying other nations should “decide” how long U.S. forces are going to be stuck in Iraq. I’m saying we let them know we intend to leave, but we do not intend to do so in a way that puts their security at risk or leaves them holding the bag. So let’s sit down and work out a method for cooperation that includes getting us the hell out of there and them helping with that endeavor.
But plenty of people would love to see a stablized Iraq, most importantly all of its neighbors. They might not care about helping clean up our mess, but they sure don’t want a collapsed hotbed of violence and chaos in their back yard.
Nuts to Feingold. One of the things that has bothered me about Congressional hearings for decades is that so many Congresscritters use them, not to ask questions, but to grandstand and give speeches.
They can give speeches any damned time they want to.
I was a lot more impressed by - I hate to say this - Joe Biden, who used his questions to back Crocker into a corner and force him to admit that it was more important to deal with the al-Qaeda mothership in Pakistan and Afghanistan than to worry about “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”
This is why General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker’s testimony yesterday was irrelevant. As much as I like what Feingold said, it was wasted rhetoric.
I think Iran, Turkey, Syria actually all the Middle Eastern countries have an interest in seeing a stable Iraq. Unfortunately I think being seen as helping the US would probably be rather unpopular with these countries populations.
