The “symbolic” disapproval of Bush’s Iraq policy floated by some Democrats is exactly the kind of tentative wishy-washy approach that has gotten the Party into such trouble in recent years. It is reminiscent of Kerry’s shifting Iraq policies which helped him lose the 2004 election. Fundamentally, it is weak.
Ted Kennedy is right: if you’re opposed to this war, say it. Refuse to fund troop increases. Accept a constitutional showdown. If, on the other hand, you think the Iraq war deserves even more investment — perhaps, like some of our distinguished BMG readers, you think the problem in Iraq is lack of U.S. troops, or operational, as opposed to strategic, faults that can be remedied by better management — vote for the neocon vision and Bush’s proposed expansion.
The Democrats just won a national mandate based in large part on disgust with Bush’s botched Iraqi adventure. The failure of our C-in-C is dramatic: we have been fighting longer than we did in WWII and Baghdad is not even secure. Seems like a pretty good time to press the case against the war.
What is inexcusable, however, is to not take a position by voting for “symbolic” non-measures. The calculation may be that the political moment to really, as opposed to symbolically, oppose the war will be more advantageous in a few months or years, when the situation gets worse. That is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers, among others. It is repulsive. Leaders, as has recently been observed here in another dramatic situation, must lead.
This is not a question of being for or against the war. We Dems need to stop being against the war and for an agenda to solve the problems we now have as a result of our (the United States) misguided invasion. Withdrawal without a plan is not a strategy. Where is the strategy?
<
p>
We all know what happens in a vacuum of leadership on an issue. The side with a definative position usually wins.
<
p>
I would be all for a withdrawal if a plan or strategy was communicated that solved problems (my take on the problems). We have been proven right! Let’s drop it and start promoting an agenda that solves problems.
<
p>
I don’t think it’s necessarily either/or. I don’t think you can have strategic mistakes made without those mistakes translating into operational problems.
<
p>
Although a strategic decision was made NOT to employ the Baathist infrastructure after the fall of Bagdad four years ago was strategic (or lack of strategy), it translated directly into operational difficulties.
<
p>
The question now is: are 20,000 more troops more helpful, or less helpful, to the situation. If there is a way out of this unmitigated disaster other than withdrawal, what is it? These are the questions we need to ask.
Is that the Bush administration never intended to simply liberate Iraq and leave, in my judgment. Thus, the attack on Iraq rather than North Korea (which really does have WMD but does not have oil). Thus, the permanent bases. A bid for an old-fashioned empire, dressed in attractive rhetoric. But the days of empire are over, so the mission is failing. Can it be salvaged? Sure, anything is possible, but the idea of permanent bases and a permanent direct occupation/control of Iraq by the U.S. have to be dropped. Until Bush acknowledges this basic reality, and adopts practical steps to implement a new strategy, no amount of operational tinkering — like adding 20,000 troops — will bring victory. Democrats should stand up and say so.
They can pass the symbolic resolution while getting the support for Kennedy’s resolution.
<
p>
Meanwhile our job is not to disrepect the people working to get them out of there for supporting a symbolic vote, but to help them out by educating the public on what power of the purse means, and how Bush will try to portray it, and how he may even choose to play chicken with the lives of the troops.
Note: I posted this on another thread, and only then scrolled down to see this post. I think its more appropriate here, so I am going to repost it.
<
p>
<
p>
When we first went to war I was in my senior year of college in DC. I remember just finishing an activity and a priest coming in and announcing “The president is going to address the nation. We are going to war.” He left, and we all moved down the street where there would be a room and a TV large enough to accommodate us all. I remember that I was hungry, that I hadn’t eaten anything all day. I resolved then that I would fast for the remainder of the war.
<
p>
And fast I did, no more than two meals a day – one large, one small. No snacks or candy. No beer even – tough for an Irishman with St. Patrick’s Day only a few days away. I drank milk and water only until that day a few months later when W stood on the Lincoln and declared the mission had been accomplished. I really thought it would all be over soon.
<
p>
I did other things in the meantime. Every day, several times a day, I updated my away message with the number of US and Iraqi dead and wounded from IraqBodyCount.net. I went to protests. I wrote letters. I talked to my Congressman live and in person about my opposition.
<
p>
I thought it was ridiculous that we would send half as many troops to invade and occupy a country the size of California than we did to simply liberate and defend the border (from the same enemy) of a country the size of Connecticut a decade before. Now it is finally clear to the prez that it was a ridiculous notion. He is finally sending more troops, and probably not enough troops, four years too late.
<
p>
As much as I hate this war, all wars, I believe in the Pottery Barn rule. We broke Iraq, now we own Iraq. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to put it back together again. Its not going to be pretty, and its not going to be easy, and its certainly not going to be cheap.
<
p>
Still, we did this to them. Us, the US. We now need to fix it. We need a new course and a new direction in Iraq, but we have a moral obligation to the widows and the mothers who buried their children because of the chaos we inflicted on them to fix it and at least bring back some stability.
<
p>
Twenty one thousand troops are not enough. To steal a phrase from Johnny Mac, its whack-a-mole. I hate it, hate it, but we need to send in more, not fewer, troops. I’ve got friends in Iraq. I have family in Kuwait. I want them home, but I want Iraq fixed first.