First we have to admit we were wrong

Before we can do anything else in terms of "changing course" in Iraq -- or Afghanistan or Washington D.C. or anywhere else -- we have to admit we were wrong. Having done that, and having looked at our past actions and acknowledged them to be wrong, we can begin to change.

I've never been in a 12-step program, so I don't claim to know anything at all about them, but it seems to me that the declaration of one's addiction, whatever it is, marks the starting point for recovery.

The Bush Administration has not yet been able to admit that it made a mistake in invading Iraq. Robert Gates, the incoming Secretary of Defense, has taken the huge step for the administration of acknowledging we are not "winning" the war, but as the various clips of Mr. Bush shown on television subsequent to that remark show, he is not yet in a mental place where he can agree with Mr. Gates. And until Mr. Bush acknowledges that "mistakes were made," he's not going to be able to change the way he directs policy regarding Iraq.

The discussions about whether to stay in Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops (and I suppose that includes advisers, support contractors, mercenaries, etc.) immediately almost never include an examination of how a withdrawal would be effected. Whether the commentator is Pat Buchanan screaming his befuddled head off about how he opposed the war from the beginning or a more rational Sen. Russ Feingold explaining why the invasion was a mistake in the first place, no one seems to be offering a possible blueprint for a withdrawal. And given that memories of the 1974 exit from Vietnam are still fresh, I would think there'd be all kinds of discussion of the mistakes made there and how not to make them in leaving Iraq.

But there seems to be a collective national resistance to admitting the two crushing truths: First, invading Iraq was a monumental mistake, and second, we have no reasonable hope of achieving any kind of honorable goal now that we're there. The second is an admission of defeat, and the American psyche isn't ready for that. We never learned that vital lesson from Vietnam. And that's why we're fighting that war all over again in a different locale.

I think one of the reasons we're so stubborn, even many of those of us on the left side of the political spectrum, is that we know there's going to be a heavy price to pay, and that also makes Iraq different from Vietnam. It may be a price beyond our conscious capacity to imagine. But in order to begin the process of preparing to leave Iraq, we must examine the potential costs and determine not only whether or not we can morally, ethically, emotionally, financially afford them, but then determine how we're going to pay them.

John Kerry's famous 1971 words are going to be echoed often in the coming months. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" More soldiers and marines and advisers and trainers and contractors and peace-keepers are going to die between now and the "end" of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. We have no idea how many. But I think we can all agree that the longer we stay, the more will die. As some pundits have pointed out, the notion of leaving a bunch of U.S. trainers embedded in the Iraqi army and other "security" forces seems ludicrous. Bob Woodward pointed out that the disbanding of the Iraqi army in 2003 resulted in sending hundreds of thousands of men home, presumably with their weapons, and giving them nothing to do but learn to hate the invader. To leave U.S. troops in the middle of that mess after the departure of U.S. "security forces" would be to invite a bloodbath, and I don't believe any rational person, American or otherwise, thinks that's a good idea.

So what are we supposed to do? Maybe we should go to the U.N. -- with a new spokesperson now that U.N. hater John Bolton is gone -- and say, "Hey, world, we fucked up. We need to get out. Can you help us?" And maybe they would do that. Maybe they would be so glad to see us finally coming to our national senses would restore our standing in the world community enough that some of our recent arrogance would be forgiven. Or maybe not, because the U.S. that will be withdrawing from Iraq is not the superpower it was when it left Vietnam. We don't have the power of the bully anymore. Many around the world who could do nothing in the face of our arrogant abandonment of Vietnam will experience that delightful schadenfreude of seeing the might U.S. depart Iraq in disgrace.

But cutting and running with our tails between our legs is only part of the picture. There's also what comes afterward.

Will certain members of the administration be indicted for war crimes? And if they are, will we as a nation turn them over to international authorities for trial and possible punishment? Here on DU we've talked about waiting for the day we see these officials in the dock at the Hague, but how strong will our stomachs be when we watch our national reputation dragged through that court of international public opinion?

Will the U.S. be billed for the damage we inflicted on Iraq? Whatever else can be said about Saddam Hussein, at least he didn't completely destroy the infrastructure of the country. There was electricity and water and food and education. Women attended university and doctors treated patients in hospitals. If there were insufficient medical supplies and if the infrastructure was crumbling, how much was the result of the sanctions the U.S. had imposed on Iraq with the help of the U.N.? We now know that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and not even a very viable program for obtaining them, and wasn't that the whole point of the various embargoes? So wasn't the deterioration of the electric grid and the power stations and water and sewer plants partly our fault?

Oh, sure, we've poured billions into "reconstruction," and no one knows where most of it went. The fact remains that our actions ruined Iraq, and you have to believe that someone, somewhere, is going to call for reparations. The other fact that remains is that in some ways, our actions -- or the actions of the administration of our country -- have ruined the U.S., too. Our industrial infrastructure is nothing close to what it was forty, twenty, or even ten years ago. Our public infrastructure -- roads, schools, utilities -- is in some ways similarly decrepit. We have a tax structure that allows the very wealthy to pay nothing and the poor, who have nothing to pay, pay everything. Zero plus zero equals zero: We have no tax base, because the tax policies of this administration have effected a fiscal polarization that shrinks the middle class even while putting too much burden on it.

What will we do to compensate the people and the nation(s) of Iraq after we've finally left? What will the prospect of rebuilding Baghdad and Basra and Falluja do to our national psyche when New Orleans and "Ground Zero" remain the way we left them? What kind of PTSD will we collectively suffer, and what kind of therapy will enable us to recover?

I watched the clips of Mr. Bush as he was confronted by the British reporters, and I watched as Tony Snow tried to beat back the attack of reporter David Gregory when the hard questions were asked. The administration is not capable -- at least not yet -- of admitting they were wrong. And if that point is being hammered home to them by the Report of the Iraq Study Group, the point of defeat is not.

We were wrong to invade Iraq, and we have lost there. We have already paid a heavy price in lives lost and monies wasted. But there is still another huge price to be paid. Unless we are able to swallow our national pride without choking on it like a presidential pretzel, we will remain in this morass, this quagmire, this national nightmare that is Iraq.

As Walt Kelly so simply put it during another quagmire, we have met the enemy and he is us.


Tansy Gold

:kick:r

A couple years ago I wrote a piece here, during the Swiftboat madness, about "Why Vietnam Matters." I went back and reread it this morning, after posting today's bit, and I realized that we never really did learn the lesson of Vietnam. If anything, the 1991 Iraq war kept us from learning that lesson. It made us think, once again, that we were invincible, always right, always had god on our side.

We were wrong.

Again, thanks.

TG

I opposed that war too, but only cause I didn't trust GHWB to uphold the Powell doctrine.

Peace and God Bless!

They are using that as their one size fits all excuse to change nothing in Iraq. Nothing will change unless the democrats force him through subpoenas or he leaves office.

neither him nor those who enabled him.

Very well done. I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you.

I read so much here that I admire, and my thoughts tend to be pretty jumbled most of the time. But watching how boooosh and tony snow reacted yesterday to being confronted point blank on what's really going on made me sit down and take stock.

No one seems to be acknowledging the elephant in the living room, the one that is dropping piles and piles of shit on everything -- this whole adventure was wrong, from the beginning it was wrong, it's been handled wrong, getting out is going to be a horrendous mess because everything was wrong, staying isn't going to make ANYTHING right, and ultimately we the people are going to pay a horrendous price for the errors, the mistakes, the lies, the wrongs of the boooshies. They, of course, will not pay a thing. They will live in their delusions, on their magnificent retreat in paraguay or wherever, and they will never ever ever know or pay or hurt.

But we can't do anything, we can't move one millimeter from "stay the course" until we collectively acknowledge the wrongness of what has gone in the past.

We were wrong. We fucked up. We hurt a lot of people. Now, what can we begin to do to stop continuing the wrong? That's what we have to do FIRST.

Will the wronger in chief do it? I have my doubts. And he's the one who has to do it.

TG

Likewise, it wasn't a 'mistake' when the U.S. invaded Iraq. It was, and is, a war crime - a Crime Against Peace.

The ISG's Report attempts to maintain the corrupt pretense that there was some legitimate objective in that invasion and occupation. Wrong. There is no such legitimate objective. The ISG presumes that the systemically-embedded entitlements of global privateers should be preserved. They should not be preserved. The global profiteers deserve no quarter - and their ill-gotten gains should be confiscated and their entitlements terminated immediately.

is admitting the fact that you created it and have the personal responsibility for solving it.

Your statement about solving a problem is completely accurate:



However, Junior isn't mentally or emotionally mature enough to ever admit a mistake. He's been allowed to say the dog ate his homework his entire life and has gotten away with it.

I haven't entered into much of the discussion on whether or not the incoming Congress should address impeachment, because I see it as a potential quagmire in itself. I can almost see the boooshies welcoming an impeachment process because it would distract from other issues, including the continued prosecution of the war and the continued profiteering.

And I wonder if perhaps, somewhere deep within the mental machinations of the senior boooshies there isn't an attempt to dislodge the boy-king from power and through the installation of SecDef Gates turn this thing around. I'm not optimistic about that, but it's a dim possibility.

I think impeachment would be a horrendous calamity for this country, and yet I also think it's very possible that impeachment, and the radical surgery on the body politic that it entails might be the only means to save the republic.

And I am one of those who believes we as a nation must accept the verdict of the international community even if it means major changes to our "American" way of life . We have to accept the moral responsibility for our actions, even if all we did was nothing.

When the Bill O'Reillys of the world scream about those of us on the left "wanting America to lose," I think we spend too much time refuting that accusation when what we really need to do is point out to Bill-O that WE HAVE ALREADY LOST. We have lost almost 3000 military lives, countless more have been destroyed through injuries mental and physical. Families have been destroyed. Our economy is in bad shape. Our moral standing in the world is lower than whale shit. Our constitution is in tatters; our rights are eroding faster than a California hillside in a heavy rain. But the other side of that same coin is the fact that there is nothing left to "win." If indeed, as O'Reilly himself suggests, we kill 90% of the Iraqis (or let them kill each other), what kind of victory is that? And what will we have won, if in winning we ignite the flames of an even worse holocaust? How do we then "win" over Iran, and Syria, and Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, ad infinitum?

But at the heart of it all we have a little, insecure man who has been put into a position where he can do whatever he wants until someone steps in and stops him.

Anyone remember "Trelayne"?

TG

Of *'s craziness, the worm will turn.

With all the layers surrounding him, yesterday's press conference further chipped away at the facade. As the egomaniac is revealed, it will not take a psychiatrist to show people the man's true self.

If * does not admit any fault, then the country at large needs to step in and do it. The best way to reclaim any credibility in this world is for the US to admit that our continued presence there is a mistake, that the invasion was a mistake, and that our president is a mistake.

Impeachment would answer all 3 mistakes.

Great post. Thanks!

I think most people, whether in "middle America" figuratively or literally, remain in a state of both fear and denial. No one wants to admit to a mistake, whether in politics, the stock market, or even in marriage. And generations of American hubris have left us almost pathologically incapable of seeing the U.S. as anything other than that shining beacon of democracy, looking out for everyone's welfare, etc. It's difficult to see the U.S. as anything comparable to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin. That's why I think taking this first step is going to be so very difficult but yet it is so very important.

Over the years, I've considered a variety of different sig lines for here on DU, but I always end up sticking with the Machado epigram: El ojo que ves no es ojo porque tú lo veas; es ojo porque te ve. (The eye that you see isn't an eye because you see it; it's an eye because it sees you.) Our perception can't change certain aspects of the truth, and ultimately we have to live (or die) with the results of reality. We can declare the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought an end to World War II and saved millions of American lives at the expense of Japanese lives, or we can admit these were political acts only partly connected to the winning of the war against the Japanese and partly also connected to winning what would ultimately be the "cold war" against the Soviets. But no matter which side we are on in that debate, the fact remains that the bombs were dropped, hundreds of thousands of people died, and the U.S. is the only nation to have employed nuclear weapons in war.

We can't change the past. We can't bring back the lives already lost, regrow the amputated limbs, make the blind see. All we can do is affect the future, for better or worse.

I rented "Fog of War" this morning. I've never seen it. I have a feeling it's going to be . . ... interesting.


Tansy Gold

n/t

. . .If we are to save the soul of the nation, it is time for an intervention.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8">We're Doomed! Doomed I Tell You! (An Impeachment Intervention)

litany of places where things have gone wrong.

But I also think there's a point at which anyone -- individually or collectively -- has to choose which battles are winnable and which are quixotic. Had the 2006 elections produced a greater landslide for the Dems, I think impeachment would have been on the table. But the narrow wins in some cases and the losses in others -- I'm thinking especially of Tammy Duckworth -- seemed to me to indicate that the American electorate didn't quite support the direct confrontation that would be impeachment.

Now, I don't want that to be taken to mean I'm against impeachment per se. And I'm certainly not against any kind of intervention that gets this mess resolved. But when I look back on the two cases in recent history that came to crisis stage, I don't think we've reached the tipping point on GWB. . .. yet.

Nixon's impeachment was averted because members of his own party approached him and said they wouldn't be able to protect him; his removal from office was going to be accomplished one way or another and he'd be better off (as would his party and the country) if he did the honorable thing and resigned. I don't think the Dems have that kind of support yet from the pukes in congress, although I think it could yet come if investigations are launched and secrets are revealed.

Clinton's impeachment ultimately backfired on the GOP, even if not in the short run. They hobbled him, but they couldn't destroy him, and in a sense they made him stronger. Whether Hillary runs for and wins the presidency doesn't matter so much as the fact that she -- and through her, Bill -- is still a very visible Clinton presence, rubbing their noses in their failure.

The last thing the Dems need at this point is a failure like what the pukes had with Clinton. They need to have the kind of slam-dunk case against boooosh that he claimed he had against Saddam Hussein; until they have it, I don't think impeachment is the way to go. Once they DO have it, however, I hope they pull out all the stops and nail his rotten hide to the wall. I'm not sure they will, but I sure as hell hope they do.


Tansy Gold