Jim Webb WP Op-Ed piece from Sept. 4, 2002 re: Iraq...incredible

Heading for Trouble
Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?
By James Webb

Wednesday, September 4, 2002; Page A21


Country music's most popular song this summer is a defiantly nationalistic tune by Toby Keith, in which he warns potential adversaries that if they mess with us, "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." Last week the Chinese government showed us its way. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had brought a conciliatory gesture from the Bush administration, agreeing to recognize a separatist group in China's Xinjiang province as a terrorist entity. This diplomatic contortion was so appeasing that the Economist magazine labeled its logic "astonishing." And yet the day after Armitage left, the Chinese government sent its own political signal by "test-firing" a DF-4 missile, which has a range of more than 4,000 miles and was designed to attack U.S. military bases on Guam.

The implied disrespect of this incident did not occur in a vacuum, either militarily or diplomatically. As our country remains obsessed with Saddam Hussein, other nations have begun positioning themselves for an American war with Iraq and, most important, for its aftermath. China, which has pursued a strategic axis with key Islamic nations for nearly 20 years, received the Iraqi foreign minister just after Armitage's departure, condemning in advance an American attack on that country. Russia has been assiduously courting -- both diplomatically and economically -- all three nations identified by President Bush as the "axis of evil." Iran -- the number one state sponsor of international terrorism, according to our own State Department -- has conducted at least four flight tests of the nuclear-capable Shahab-3 missile, whose range of 800 miles is enough to hit U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Turkey and Central Asia.

Meanwhile, American military leaders have been trying to bring a wider focus to the band of neoconservatives that began beating the war drums on Iraq before the dust had even settled on the World Trade Center. Despite the efforts of the neocons to shut them up or to dismiss them as unqualified to deal in policy issues, these leaders, both active-duty and retired, have been nearly unanimous in their concerns. Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? On this second point, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action included -- at a minimum -- Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and North Korea.

America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations. With respect to the situation in Iraq, they are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences -- ask the Germans, who in World War I were convinced that they would defeat the French in exactly 42 days. The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.

<more>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34847-2002Sep3?language=printer

since he voted FOR the last supplemental bill (without deadlines).

:eyes:


(to be clear - that is not my assessment of Webb.)

vote for Bush war, no restrictions, which he did, or continue to vote against it, which would have denied Bush his war and forced him to eventually accept a timeline. His reasons were "political reality", i.e. I want to keep drawing this $160,000 a year pay check for some time to come.

Webb assures us:

"My efforts will continue with the Defense Authorization Bill, which will soon be debated on the Senate floor. This week, I introduced a restrictive amendment during the Armed Services Committee's mark-up of that bill. I withdrew the amendment during the mark-up process due to a technical objection, but I intend to offer this amendment on the floor of the Senate when the Defense Authorization bill comes up for debate in the coming weeks."

his recent disconnect on the funding vote:

The greatest military victory of our time -- bringing an expansionist Soviet Union in from the cold while averting a nuclear holocaust -- was accomplished not by an invasion but through decades of intense maneuvering and continuous operations.

Actually it was accomplished by dozens of proxy wars fought in OTHER countries and which killed millions of people and cost trillions of dollars. The Cold War was a war based on a fake premise (the Soviets were a threat to us), manufactured by Nazi prisoners so they could avoid Nuremberg.

If you can ignore the facts that MILLIONS died in the proxy wars between the US and the Soviet Union (Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Angola, Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc,..) then you can claim that the Cold War was "a great military victory".

If you ignore the fact that Webb's vote helps Bush keep his war going and that that means 100+ Americans and 3,000+ Iraqis will continue to die EACH MONTH for the next 5-10 years, then you can call Webb's vote "justified".

the circumstances are changed.

I respectfully disagree that Webb is spineless. I disagree
with the war in Iraq, but once we are in there, care has
to be taken in how we extricate ourselves.

I am with those who believe Bush is going to be drawing
down troops. He has to do something well before the
election "to save his party" so they can run on "War against
Terrorism". Sitting in Iraq contradicts that.

since either he will leave in 2009 and it will be someone else's problem (he will be able to kick back to a life of wealth beyond the dreams of avarice), or because he will cancel elections in 2008 and establish himself as our "Maximum President for Life".

Now some folks may dismiss the latter as impossible, but since the framework is there already and no one, and I mean NO ONE, has bothered to stop him from his usurpation of power and destruction of the Constitution, why the Hell not. I'm sure that when Bush issues his declaration canceling the elections do to a "pending terrorist attack", Pelosi and Reid will issue a stern press release, then vote for the measure "reluctantly" as the only means to assure America "safety". Please note that Nancy Pelosi has already promised Bush he won't be impeached.

Back to your comment about being careful how we "extricate ourselves". If we left tomorrow, a million Iraqis would die in the resulting blood bath. If we leave five years from now, the same number of Iraqis will die, plus another 180,000-250,000+ Iraqis will die between now and then along with another 6,000-10,000 Americans. Also, by then the war will be heading North of $3 trillion.

Also, the longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the temptation for the War Monger in Chief to attack Iran, Syria or both.

Tell me again why we need to stay?

defeat of the great "Soviet threat." I'm sure that you would also agree that this "war on terrorism" is nothing more that a replacement for the Soviet threat, to create another "great evil that wants to destroy America" so that the MIC and Big Energy can continue to rape the treasury and other countries resources. Iraq is the first thrust of this effort for continued and increased global dominance and an unending war by the powers that be.

As much as I want to see this war ended immediately and our forces pulled out of Iraq completely and immediately, I will have to somewhat disagree with you on the funding vote. Call me a pragmatist, but aside from the fact that the Dems didn't have the votes to get what they wanted in the first place, and were able to get some important legislation passed that would have otherwise been vetoed by the chimpinator, pushing for a exact and defined withdrawal date had enormous political pitfalls.

Say for example the Dems had been successful in setting a time-line for troop withdrawal and this had been followed by a not unlikely scenario of ever increasing violence up to the point of the withdrawal date (i.e. Iraq falls into much, much worse chaos than it already is in -- say 30,000 killed per month rather than 3,000 -- and this instability spills out to the entire region); the Dems would be mercilessly blamed by the opposition, by the media, etc., etc. for the entire situation. As it is, the Iraq occupation is the GOP's baby and an ever tightening noose around the their neck...it truly threatens their very political existence for decades to come. As time goes on, this will likely only get worse and public opinion will slowly be shifted more and more to our side.

Don't get me wrong, as much as I think it's despicable to play politics with what basically amounts to lives, it is the reality of the current environment. As it is, the WH will be forced to go back to Congress in three months to wage this entire funding battle again...by that time I'm betting that the polls with be even worse for little boots and his war mongering cronies and more and more citizens will be demanding withdrawal.

After Bush's veto the only moral action for the Dems was to either send him the same bill, or send him nothing. The pressure would have been on Bush, since the Dems would be able to say, "We sent you a bill, you vetoed it."

Giving Bush any money, especially with no restrictions was a craven and calculatedly political move on the Dems part to avoid looking "soft" or "anti-troops". And like all craven and calculatedly political moves, it was unethical, immoral, and just WRONG.

Violence in Iraq will escalate, with or without us. The "war" was lost the day we invaded. The reality, the very hard cold reality of the situation is that the real decision is how many more people are we going to watch die before we decide enough people have died? How much more money are we going to spend (money we do not have and are thus mortgaging the future for) before we decide we can spend no more?

September will make no difference, since the Dems, by caving, have shown they have no spine. Bush will use the same tactics (fear, smears and lies) that he used this time and the Dems will cave yet again.

As I have said before, the vote was a test of moral character and Webb, Pelosi, Reid, et al, failed. There is no do over.

The Iraq war is, without a doubt, an immoral war -- not that there is such a thing as a moral war -- not to mention and illegal one. It was immoral as soon as the PNAC drew up their plans and pushed for invasion since the late '90s.

My point is that although the Dems basically gave * all he wanted, they put up a very determined and well publicized fight, one which highlighted the Dems insistence that we put and endpoint to this war and one which will be remembered the next time chucklenuts has to go back to Congress in the fall and go through the whole exercise again. By that time three to four months will have passed, who knows how many more soldiers and Iraqi civilians will have been killed, * will have lost more points in the polls, the election will be four months closer and the Repugs in Congress will be that much more concerned for their political futures. The pressure will be higher and higher as time goes on for the Repugs to watch out for their own asses and side with the popular opinion, which is the Dem's and our position. At that point the decision will be a bipartisan one. However, if the Reps keep up the opposition to withdrawal through to the next election, you can count on a Dem super-majority in 2009.

I would love to play poker with these guys. Their strategy is: Raise, raise, raise, raise, FOLD!

Bookmark this post, and I will predict what will happen in September.

After months of rising bloodshed and a two month vacation by the Iraqi parliament, Gen. Patraeus will issue his report.

The report (which was due in early September but is not made until October) will state that it has been a hard Summer and that it is very sad that we suffered such high casualties. Obviously, Al Qaeda has stepped up attacks in hopes that they could make it look like the escalation (surge) has failed. However, there has been measurable progress in counter-insurgency efforts, which we wish we could show you, but such things are classified. Lots of cooked numbers and statistics will be offered which people like Judas Joe Lieberman will masturbate with publicly.

We will be on the crux of a crucial turning point, in view of the light at the end of the tunnel, turning a corner, or some such maggot-ridden cliche, and pulling out now would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

There will be much arguing back and forth about the same damned things we argued for the last five months. Bush will trot out all the same tired lies, and threats. At some point some vacuous celebrity will die, be arrested for murder, or flash their genitalia at an underage wallaby and the media will drop everything for 24x7 coverage for two weeks.

This will mean it will be November before anyone actually draws up a bill and schedules a vote. The bill will be VERY, VERY tough, with stringent reporting requirements, strict time tables for withdrawal. It will takes weeks to get this bill hammered through with all the name-calling and arm-twisting that will take place. The bill will be passed by a narrow majority with Judas Joe voting against it in January.

Bush will veto it.

Lots of tough talking will take place, but the media will re-run the same "Bush has slapped the Dems down" narrative they ran for the last few weeks and behind all the tough talk, the Vichy Dems will once again "compromise". This time they will send a funding bill with "benchmarks" (non-binding) which Bush will sign. The Dems will claim victory (again) and say that the will be VERY, VERY tough on Bush in June. They will pinky-swear that Bush will be FORCED to sign their bill because he will have no choise in light of his current 19% approval rating.

When June rolls around, repeat the same process as above. THIS time the Dems will actually pass a bill with a binding time table, which Bush will then nullify with a signing statement.

AG Alberto Gonzalez will then tell congress that based on his reading of the Constitution, impeachment only applies to Democrats.

Meanwhile we will have another 1200-1500 American corpses, along with another 10,000+ wounded.

:patriot:

I am sick to death of the prevarications and rationalizations. I've tried to be supportive of the new Congress, but with the passage of that funding bill, I feel as if I've been told, in no uncertain terms, to f**k off.

I cheered Webb on because I thought if anyone could make a difference in the Iraq quagmire, it would be him. I am also disappointed with the democratic senators who are currently running for the presidency. If they couldn't persuade enough of their colleagues to vote with them for timelines, how effective will they be, once in the WH? I mean, were these symbolic CYA votes to help on the campaign trail, or were they votes of conviction? I'm damned if I know anymore.

I know everyone says there weren't enough votes to override Bush's veto, but dammit this was a chance to stand up to him, and make him veto funding for the troops that he supports so much. Maybe I just need a break from it all.

As I said above, the Dems ONLY moral action would have been to send him the same bill he vetoed or to simply send him nothing.

saying--I saw them on TV talking to Reporters---the troops will
get the funds. Never once did I believe the troops would be
defunded.

Therefore , I did not see a cave. They knew the veto was on the
way. They were trying to see if Bush would change his mind.

In fact from time to time I posted these accounts.