Winning The Iraq Debate

OK - so some Democrats call for an immediate pull out or a time table or a table based on accomplishments. Repbulicans (and some Democrats) say that would be "cutting and running" and encouraging terrorism by showing that Americans get a bloody nose and retreat. You will never convince these hawks otherwise. They don't see that our presence in Iraq is the cause of the insurgency. They believe we were attacked on 9-11 'cos of our policy of cutting & running in response to terrorism. We are unlikely to convince them otherwise.

Acknowledge both the mistakes and progress in Iraq. Make the case (throw Dubya's words back at him) that it is "Mission Accomplished." Therefore, we have no further reason to be there. We have done what we can to start them down the road to Democracy and we are not a police force, it is time for Iraq to grow up and fight their own battles. Finally, warn the insurgents that we are leaving now but if they further interfere with Iraq's development of Democracy we SHALL RETURN.

Thoughts?

Rubbing their noses in it is more fun.

I will suggest one point for your consideration, however: In 1983, their Saint Ronnie of Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon after a suicide bomber killed 241 Marines in their Marine barrack. Did Reagan cut and run?

Fact is, repukes are creating a false dilemma - stay the course or cut and run.

Staying the course makes as much sense as a sailor refusing to change direction of a ship, after having seen a reef dead ahead. But that's what Bush wants to do, simply because he resists all ideas that come from anywhere outside his regieme.

John Murtha didn’t suggest that we cut and run. In fact, his plan was one of redeployment. He called for immediate redeployment of our troops consistent with their safety. He suggests the creation of a quick reaction force in the region, and an over-the-horizon presence of Marines. Murtha recommends that we diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.

In Lebanon. Bush 41 Cut & Ran. Clinton Cut & Ran in Somalia.

I'm not necessarily talking truth here, I am talking perceptions - and practically speaking we must work with those.

It seems like every time Democrats talk about redeployment or getting our troops out of Iraq, they never mention the "good" things there and that gives the (chicken)hawks cause to call it "cut and run." We need to twist it back at them and say, our job is done and that is why we are leaving.

if we leave "wrong", Iraq will degenerate into civil strife from which Iran will emerge as saviour and regional power broker. Iraq will become what many of its citizens want anyway, another marginal and backwards Muslim theocracy, and the demolition of its modestly modern, secular culture with equal rights for women which the Americans intended and started will be complete. Iran will have oil reserves available next door, and get to play power politics in the region while being a kindly uncle to its Shiite nieces and nephews next door. It will play hardball with the Sunnis until they also say "uncle", and do its best to eradicate those bothersome Kurds. The ingredients are there.

How do we avoid this ? Do we demand a timetable ? The first response that occurred to me when Doober harrumphed that he wouldn't be pressured into giving a timetable was, any plan includes a schedule. Normally any tangible process for arriving at some end result involving the creation of something includes some kind of estimate of how long each step will take, etc.

But OK, Doobie's being outcome-based, and he wants attainment of goals as the sole criterion.

So let's take him up on that and ask, OK, what are the goals ?

Is his three-step plan the way to get there ? Is he missing something ?

We note that as in all things, intent matters. It shapes actions, and modifies their outcome. It is what steers cause-and-effect. So that if the administration's real intent is not to get Iraq operating independently and freely as fast as possible, but instead plunder it for all it has and in addition, retain it as a mechanism to funnel US taxpayer dollars to US corporations, that will be the result that will be achieved, not a free and independent Iraq.

My concerns are that the Resident's analysis is inadequate, and that he's missing linkage to broader themes:

1. the insurgency is not just a bunch of extremist gits imported by Osama. The insurgency is grassroots and broadbased, just like movements resisting invaders and occupiers have been since time immemorial. This land is my land, and it ain't your land, and if you don't get off, I'll blow your head off. Simple, really, and no amount of denial by Doober or ridiculous linguistic obfuscation by Rumjob will change that. The insurgency will abate when we tell them when we're leaving, and when we make it clear that we're not in Iraq to stuff our pockets with Iraqi riches, push around another nation of browns, and ally ourselves with the most corrupt scumbags in the region the way we usually do when we're among the great unwashed (our own hygiene is lacking, to continue the metaphor, but maintaining the delusion that it isn't is critical to our self-image). Not before.

2. Americans are a young nation, and basically rubes at running empires - they don't have 1000 years of experience at it like the British. The civilian political landscape in Iraq is complex and subtle, not to mention strewn with landmines which can cause explosions if mishandled. The demonization of the Sunnis and the flip answer, "well, if you won't play along we'll deal with the other guys" is a retardate strategy. The Sunnis made Iraq a regional power. They have the secular orientation to run a modern state. Of course, this administration coming as it does from fundamentalist psychotics feels more comfortable with the more cathartically oriented, faith-based Shia. But they need to move beyond their limitations and deal with the hard facts on the ground - the Shia would drop the Americans like hot rocks if forced to choose between their liberators and Muslim and particularly Shia priorities, including affiliation of various forms with Iran. Some of the older imams appear to be genuine statesmen in the secular plane, but they also seem to be the exception - the rest of the Shia leadership appears to be the same brand of barefoot firebrand whackjobs as are the run of the mill in Iran. Our amateurish orientation to taking up with whoever is nice to us will cost us dearly if we continue it. Further, we need to admit that we wanted to destroy Iraq, and the Sunni leadership, precisely because they were capable of running a semimodern secular state which had the capability on a regional level at least of telling the West to fuck off. We don't like that kind of competition. Nevertheless, they are the folks who will make Iraq work. Or not.

3. There is no linkage between American priorities in the Middle East, and A. energy policy and B. economic policy. Our current economy is a petroleum guzzling behemoth relying on circular consumer earning and spending. We are incapable of formulating industrial policy because the Retardlicans have been able to silence debate with the claim that the market needs to be left alone. The market in fact sucks and in short order is reduced to the slop trough for those who understand self-interest - what trickles down is fecal matter. Since Doober's dad reshaped the economy to be based on productivity in consumer goods, with the people kept cranked up to work hard and spend hard, the American industrial base has a. evaporated to a significant extent (displaced overseas) and b. shifted to low-utility consumables. We have had 30 years to formulate a vision of what a post-industrial industrial base looks like, and so far the supply-side moneybags and flatulators have dominated the debate. It's time to address what we actually want to do with our country, and to a significant extent that question is about what we occupy ourselves with producing. We've been Wal-Martized and it's time to stop. Drop the volume of productivity since it depends on unsustainable resource flows, and raise the utility of the goods produced. America is inefficient at heavy industry because there are a million hucksters along the line with their hands out waiting for a cut, and it ain't the workers either, it's the owners. End of the gravy train, reduce profits, remind stockholders that investments are for the long term, and that it's a patriotic duty to maximize return for the nation, not its wealthy. Link this to hard requirements on conservation (not just a giggling Doober mouthing the word for the first time at a media op) and growing decentralized production of alternative energy. If we do this, we won't be needing to invade countries for their oil or playing other wannabe empire games.