Now, what Senator Kerry said is somewhat true: the Iraqi government isn’t stepping up. They aren’t doing their job. However, we’ve done everything in our power to set them up for failure. We:
- Dismantled the Baathists who were the only ones experienced in running Iraq.
- Sent home the Iraqi military after deposing Hussein, effectively firing a well armed and trained group of young, poor – and now angry – men.
- Bombed their infrastructure.
- Invited insurgents from across Iraq and the world to be there by invading an Arab country without just cause.
- Set up conditions where the population is fleeing, dying and starving.
What do we expect of a country that we just recently blew up to smithereens? Jeffersonian Democracy in six months? Hell, the U.S. Constitution wasn’t signed until 1787 – 11 years after Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, the founders didn’t have guerrilla warfare to contend with; we were the insurgency. And our insurgency went home after major combat ended at Yorktown. Not to mention, our saviors – the dreaded French – left after they helped depose us from 1775’s King George. Imagine what would have happened if the French “helped” and stayed for years? Our insurgency would have continued well past Yorktown. So, yes, it may be humanly possible for the Iraqi government to do more, but lots of things are possible that have yet to come true – even when bombs aren’t getting in the way of the path toward accomplishment.
So, Senator Kerry is wrong: it isn’t Iraq’s fault. But, he’s still right, right? He’s still calling for us to get out of Iraq, after all. If only that were enough. Sometimes it may not matter how a politician comes to a position so long as he or she gets there, but Iraq isn’t one of those occasions. Arguing to get out of Iraq alone isn’t going to solve the problem, not when the Iraqi people are being vilified in the process. Saying it’s Iraq’s fault only continues to set that country up for failure, ignoring the actual problems Iraq faces.
Furthermore, even if the American people buy that message and leave Iraq for those reasons, we’ll only serve to further hinder that country’s reconstruction, after their civil war is over, through a new-found ignorance. If Iraqis are the evil terrorists Republicans paint them as and the incompetent, greedy and violent neanderthals Democratic leaders seem to be implying, Iraqis will never get the help they need from an American public that owes a great debt to that country. We can’t help Iraqis militarily, that only serves to stir up the insurgency, but we can aid and support them in other ways (the ways their populace wants, like food) – but only if our politicians ultimately fail in painting them with villainous strokes. If Iraqis are the villains, Iraqi citizens will get about as much support as we’re giving to innocent civilians in the Gaza strip right now.
Senator Kerry is sensible and understands that the process of leaving Iraq will take a long time. He says, during that time span, we need to be doing the diplomacy the Bush administration hasn’t done. Certainly, Kerry is right all the way there. But, why do we need to send our troops home? Because the Iraqi government just won’t do their jobs until they understand we’re leaving, according to Kerry. Maybe he’s right, but his opinion is far from conclusive. Even if the Iraqi parliament is petty and incompetent, surely they already understand America won’t be there forever and that things can’t continue in Iraq as they are now. Furthermore, the Iraqi parliament as a whole is not responsible – and cannot stop – the insurgency that targets America today. Primarily blaming the Iraqi government is insulting to the Iraqi people. Instead of blaming Iraq, here’s what Senator Kerry should be arguing for instead:
- We need to start leaving now, because it takes months to safely pull out over 160,000 Americans.
- Iraq – and only Iraq – has the right and ability to decide the fate of their country.
If he does those two things, he’ll show that he’s not only right on Iraq, but he’s a voice of clarity that is capable of truly leading on this issue. He’ll be a voice that won’t hurt Iraq – or America – down the road. He’ll be a voice we desperately need in D.C. today.
Crossposted at Ryan’s Take.
that is a wonderfully thoughtful take on things, as usual. I’ve given up hope on John Kerry, even when he actually represents my view somewhat, but never with believable conviction. I’m supporting Ed O’Reilly because I like him as a human being and doubt that he’s capable of the same subterfuge and political wind testing. Sometimes, it just takes someone not afraid to lead the way.
<
p>
I wholeheartedly agree we need to start leaving Iraq now, and it’s about time to recognize the rights of the Iraqis in deciding what they want for their country.
I’m hoping Kerry will come around on these important things, especially since I know I’m not alone on feeling this way (it was especially apparent at the Town Meeting I went to a few months ago and he spoke like this), but we’ll see. I do like Kerry’s seniority and I think he has potential to turn into the Senator I know he can be, but he needs to leave his last tepid footprints behind and be the voice of clarity we need if he doesn’t want to be facing opponents every term.
has it been? If the Kerry who talked about the last man dying for a useless war was still in there somewhere, I’d have some hope. The vote on Iraq, the absence on the FISA vote, etc. are not good omens. It’s an uphill battle to challenge an incumbent, but someone new may be the only way to be sure that votes are going to be cast to represent us. Seniority is great if you do something with it, otherwise it’s worthless.
Senator Kerry has said, again and again, that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. He has quoted American Generals involved in the war, such as Gen Casey, who said the solution in Iraq is political. The Iraqi government has to stand up and make the decisions necessary to begin to unify their country and end the factionalism that has led to this civil war.
<
p>
This is a central argument that Democrats who are pushing for a withdrawal of troops have advanced. This does not mean that the war is the fault of the Iraqi people. It means that their elected representatives are not coming together to force the necessary compromises and decisions that would help to quell the violence and bring peace to their country. The government of Iraq is not fulfilling it’s obligation to it’s people. That government, not the people who are suffering and dying in this civil war, is failing to do it’s job.
<
p>
There is another way. There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province. Sen. Kerry mentioned this in his speech on July 17th on the Senate floor, during the “all-nighter” that Senate Democrats forced on the Republicans in order to get them to stop filibustering the efforts to vote on a pending withdrawal amendment.
<
p>
<
p>
Iraqis in the Al-Anbar Province did come together and have made some progress at driving out the factions that are contributing to the violence. This was a ‘political decision’ made by the Iraqis on the ground to determine their own future. Why can’t the Prime Minister and the Parliament begin to do the same? The Iraqi people are waiting.
<
p>
In December of 2005, Sen. Kerry gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City and laid out what he saw as some of the real reasons for the unease that backs the ‘War on Terror.’ The West and the United States in particular have signaled to the oil-rich nations in the Middle East, “… that we don?t much care what they do so long as they keep pumping the oil and keep the price low. That attitude has to end, not only end, it must be reversed.” For too long the foreign policy of the United States has enabled Middle East autocracies and ignored the stranglehold that such policies have for the people in that region.
<
p>
The people of Iraq want peace, security, a future for their children in good paying jobs and a society that respects their unique culture and history. So do the people of most nations. The Iraqi government is not bending every effort to end this conflict and begin the steps necessary to get such a future. Sen Kerry has asked that the US stop giving this government all the time it wants to argue endlessly while Iraqis and American troops pay the price. Our presence in Iraq is enabling these politicians to do this, it is giving them a safety cushion that shields these Iraqi politicians from taking the steps only they can take to resolve the disputes in their country.
<
p>
This is not blaming the Iraqis for the war or for it’s consequences. It is asking the politicians and the government of Iraq to stand up for it’s own people. Our presence in Iraq is preventing this from happening. We need to begin to withdraw our troops and tell the Iraqi government that we cannot be their excuse anymore for not taking action. The future of Iraq must rest in Iraqi hands, it is, after all, their country.
This is exactly why I wrote this piece and cross posted it here, because I was hoping for a response from the campaign. I appreciate it and hope we can continue the dialogue going here. Part of my concerns stem from something you realize –
<
p>
<
p>
If our presence is preventing them from being able to be able to step up, I find it hard to actually blame the Iraqi government. Even if they have a very large part in the blame – and I accept Senator Kerry’s premises that they do – I just think it would be better for Democrats, not just Senator Kerry, to focus our attention on this corrupt President who’s completely dropped the ball. If we blame the Iraqi government, all of what I was talking about will still happen – from Americans losing faith in the Iraqi people to Iraqis feeling offended – so I think w should focus on the message that will actually work, which is blaming the incompetent Republicans who have lead and funded this entire war.
<
p>
Furthermore – and this is only my gut instinct based on my studies of similar situations, including in Iraq – but I fear that there’s a serious crisis of legitimacy for the Iraqi government. I’m not sure the people truly recognize the current governent as their government – which, ultimately, will make it impossible for this current Iraqi government to actually do anything about it. In some ways, it would be similar to the government of S. Vietnam during the Vietnam war: the Vietnamese just didn’t recognize that government as legitimate and they consequently had no chance for peace. Clearly, the Sunnis don’t recognize the current Iraqi government and I bet a number of Shias are tepid in trusting their government too.
<
p>
Now, if that’s the case – and I sincerely hope it’s not – then I don’t know what this country can do, except sit back and watch. Only the Iraqi people can decide how they’ll be governed – whether that includes one state, two or three, whether it’s a loose confederation or a strong federal government, whether local warlords will truly wield the power or if there will be an actual republican government. I don’t think anyone likes the ideas behind that, especially countries like Turkey who get nervous anytime we’re talking autonomy for a certain group of Iraqis, but what else can we do? If we accept the premise that only the Iraqis can actually decide how to Govern Iraq, then we have to actually allow them to set up and form their own government. If we don’t accept that premise – and continue to decide things for Iraq – then we’re not really any different than the Europeans who drew the lines on their maps in Europe to decide what the Middle East would look like… and history will only continue to repeat itself.
There has not yet been an honest discussion of the probable outcomes in Iraq. President Bush still stresses the words ‘victory’ and ‘success’ when discussing his goals in the US actions there. These terms are rarely defined and the American people are not getting a truthful and honest debate on what the goal is and what the remaining options really mean.
<
p>
There are no good choices for the US in Iraq. We have to choose which is the least immoral among a group of choices that are all, in one way or another, immoral. There will be suffering and continuing war in Iraq no matter which choice is made. The mistakes made from the very beginning of this war by Donald Rumsfeld and others in the Bush Administration have resulted in an ever closing circle of options, all of which have terrible consequences.
<
p>
I think the last paragraph of your post above is a realistic look at the most likely scenario in Iraq. The elections in Jan. of 2005 were not a success, though they were touted as such in this country at the time. (Remember the “purple-fingered” Republicans congratulating themselves on that election at the State of the Union speech in that year?) The Sunnis boycotted that election. It is hard to assign legitimacy to a government in which roughly 20-25% of the electorate refused to participate. (The election to approve the Iraqi Constitution in December of 2005 also lacked major Sunni involvement.) This was government imposed from outside, not a movement that emerged from within Iraq. The subsequent inability to form a lasting government stems from the fact that the sides mistrust each other and do not accept the legitimacy of the central government.
<
p>
The argument invoked by ‘surge’ authors Frederick Kagen and retired Gen. Jack Keane to get Pres Bush to commit additional troops to the War was premised on the idea that the Iraqi government needed more time to settle their political differences. This is not happening. The Maliki government has seen a loss of about half it’s Cabinet Ministers and the Iraqi Parliament rarely meets with a quorum of Delegates. Just last week we saw the US government publicly express a loss of faith in PM Maliki and several US officials publicly talk about replacing him. (Doesn’t this again sound like government in Iraq by outside imposition?) The ‘surge’ has failed in the exact purpose it was created to enforce; it has not resulted in action by the Iraqi government to reconcile the factions and get a functioning central government up and running. Things are either the same or worse than they were last January when additional American troops started to deploy to Iraq.
<
p>
Sen. Kerry’s campaign office is sponsoring a major campaign to hold the Republicans in the Senate responsible for their continuing votes to continue this war as is. (There is a blog-ad for this campaign on this website right now.) That July “all-nighter” speech that I referenced in my OP in this thread correctly blamed the Republicans for continuing the War even though some Republican Senators are privately expressing strong doubts about the Bush policies. These Roadblock Republicans are not voting their private views. This is unbelievably cynical and these Republicans have to be held to account for voting for the very actions they privately say are not working. I agree with you that this is a Republican failure, as virtually every decision since the beginning of the War in Iraq has been the result of arrogance, ignorance and a willful disregarding of the facts on the ground.
<
p>
President Bush invoked Vietnam this week as a reason that the Iraq War should continue until some undefined ‘victory’ is achieved because a withdrawal would embolden our enemies. Senator Kerry, in a speech at Faneuil Hall in April of 2006 recalled his reasons for coming back from Vietnam and publicly opposing that War. The Senator spoke about the numerous American officials who had lost faith in the Vietnam War effort, but continued to back the official policy of continuing it. Kerry talked about what he had learned in his time in VN and contrasted that with the official US government view of the War in 1970 or so.
<
p>
<
p>
The Republicans have to be held accountable for creating the conditions in Iraq that have led, according to the Lancet/Johns Hopkins study, to civilian deaths in Iraq in the hundreds of thousands. They have to be held accountable for not understanding or focusing in the early stages of the war on the physical needs of the Iraqi people for clean water, electricity, jobs and so forth. And the Republicans who are blocking an honest debate in the US Senate on this War and our real options have to be held accountable for their actions. These Republicans are also sending Americans into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion that so many of them have lost faith in. They must be held accountable for this cynical and immoral action.
…are you the same poster/commenter who used to post/comment here as BriVT?
<
p>
If you are, I will let you know that I, for one, prefer a little continuity, which is one reason why I virtually the same handle everywhere on the Internet that I can.
I started work for Sen. Kerry this past May. I work with BriVT in the Portland St office. I have worked with some people on this board before, in particular in the Deval Patrick campaign.
<
p>
I have always posted as TayTay (or taytay) across the web. I used that name when I signed up here in April of last year and use that name on other boards as well. I replied to Ryan because he asked about a press release that I had forwarded to him. Though I haven’t posted much here, I have met a lot of BMG folks before out in the ‘real world.’ (Ah, I guess that part is somewhat unusual, but there it is.)
<
p>
Sorry for the confusion.
…I just wanted to understand the lay of the land, as it were.
Please tell him that he needs to learn the meaning of Equality (though this is off topic for this post and I apologize in advance for that).
<
p>
We all work so hard educating our families and friends as to its real meaning and then people like the good Senator who should know better throws a monkey wrench into what we have all done.
<
p>
I find this shameful.
Turn that into a speech and give it to Senator Kerry. If we correctly label this as a Republican problem and push that meme across the country, we will get out of Iraq much sooner. Iraqis will be able to solve their significant problems that much sooner. Then, after that happens, we’ll be able to help in ways they ask, with a legitimate government behind them. To verge from the path of the issues you laid out in this eloquent response isn’t taking full advantage of the reality of the situation and what it will actually take to get us out of Iraq. The Republicans have created a nightmare and we need to fix it for them, which means getting out of Iraq and allowing Iraqis to form their own government.
I think Kerry and many others understand that it is an easier thing for many people to blame the Iraqi government than to blame our own failures. This is especially true to get polical support for a withdrawal time-table. It that is the kind of rhetoric it takes to move people I am for it.
<
p>
In his speech on dissent in April 2006 his point was that no more American troops should die because Iraqi politicians can’t resolve their differences. This wasnt to exclude our own culpabiltiy –just another dimension of the arguement.
<
p>
To me anyway, it isnt so much the merits of the issue as it is about what can move Washington to set a deadline. I listen to the real right-wingers once in a while on the radio and this is one of the arguements that seems to work with them.