McCain on Iraq - A Must Read
I have witnessed John McCain lose a lot of credibility with my moderate and liberal friends over the past 18 months. His pursuit of the Republican nomination has led to actions that have left many concerned about how moderate and bipartisan a McCain Administration might be.
Indeed, his campaign strategy has often left me confused - and occasionally made me quite mad.
Nevertheless, I still have a lot of confidence in the man and I believe him to be one of the finest people in government. In my opinion, 20 months of disturbing rhetoric in a Presidential campaign is not enough to destroy a progressive reputation built on 20 years of pragmatic and principled action.
For this reason, his continued support of the war in Iraq carries tremendous weight with me. He has little to gain and much to lose by aligning his position so closely with the President on this matter. Call me naive, but I think it is a rare example of a politician putting the interests of the nation (as he genuinely sees them) above the interests of his political career.
He wrote a piece in the Washington Post today that every advocate of withdrawal should read.
I do not present it as an ironclad case for an indefinite American military presence, only an articulate description of present day Iraq that is under reported in the media.
18 comments:
He wrote a piece in the Washington Post today that every advocate of withdrawal should read.
It was interesting reading, but I do not share his optimism, especially in light of his recent penchant for spewing blatant falsehoods, for which he has developed the adorable code word "misspeaking." Sorry, Senator, misspeaking is when you mean to say "twenty-nine" and instead you say "thirty-nine." When you mean to say, "I walked through the marketplace in a bulletproof vest with a massive security detail and Army choppers overhead," but instead you say, "Wow, it's really safe to stroll through the marketplace," it's called lying.
He has become the kind of phony and the kind of political slime that he claimed to be fighting against all those years. The other possibility is that he is actually crazy. Either way, I'd vote for Mitt Romney's barber before I voted for douchebag McCain.
I agree with Senator McCain's following statement regarding fair media coverage:
"Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report."
Let's not forget the impact the media has on public opinion. I think the media has demonstrated its power to influence foreign and domestic thinking on Iraq. If there is truly improvement in Iraq then our media has an ethical responsibility to report it.
I agree, Bryan, but I disagree with the good senator's assertion that the media is underreporting the success in Iraq. I think there is just not that much to report, despite the rosy picture that he paints.
Even if McCain's claim that the Baghdad markets are vastly more safe now is true--and it appears that it isn't--that doesn't exactly bowl me over. We're the United States. We have the most advanced and most capable armed forces in the world. We've been there for four years. I'm not going to do somersaults over our ability to monitor some produce kiosks.
Steve, your second paragraph touches on a very key point.
Though we have been there for four years, I think it is only in the last few months that we have really engaged in the types of nation building activities that Iraq requires.
The military has been primarily focused on killing "bad guys" and protecting a very limited set of real estate (e.g. the Green Zone) in the last few years. It has not had the leadership or the mandate(at the political level) to effectively launch a real counterinsurgency campaign or ensure the conditions for meaningful economic activity (the kind that provides an alternative to a man or woman considering joining a violent insurgency).
I think activities like protecting markets are an important first step in building an alternative to the insurgency. The reason it has taken us four years to achieve this basic step is because our leadership has only recently acknowledged the value of doing so and committed the appropriate resources.
It seems that you are right in that McCain has overstated the safety of these markets. On the flip side however, I tend to agree with Bryan that much of the media is guilty of the opposite. While there is no denying that disgusting acts of extreme violence are occuring every day, I honestly do NOT believe that we are witnessing a full blown civil war. I could be wrong, but I do not see clearly opposing leaders or assembled opposing armies - things you would see if the population were truly split in to truly distinct warring factions.
(i.e. I am not convinced that there is a full on war that has engulfed the average Sunni and the average Shiite - a suicide carbomber every other day is a nightmare but it is not a nation at war with itself.)
I agree with you on the misleading characterization of the situation in Iraq. I, too, don't really think of it as being in a state of civil war; I think of it as being closer to anarchy.
But if it is true that real progress in establishing a modern, civilized Iraq is only just now beginning, then one can't really complain that the media has not been touting it. "The administration finally woke up and has a plan that isn't obviously horrible" is not an exciting news item that inspires my optimism. When it starts really working, then I'll want to see it on CNN. Until then, shrug.
Worry not, citizen. Baghdad is safer. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Very interesting comments guys. I don't think Iraq is experiencing a civil war. War is always unpredictable, brutal and highly polarizing. There are so many variables that affect what is happening in Iraq. There are also many variables that affect what is being reported and how we perceive reality. How can we really evaluate our success in Iraq? What metrics do we use to compare this war with other wars? Military death toll? Civilian death toll? U.S. economic cost or Iraqi economic productivity? Do we look at the size of the coalition of forces? There are so many angles to observe this situation and ask ourselves how good or bad is it over there. Very few Americans will attempt to think in terms of metrics. We will instead lean on the media to report their take on the situation. We will then respond emotionally to what we learn from the media. Our emotional responses will always be stronger than our rational responses. As a nation, we are emotionally tired of this war. We don't like the images of death and destruction, we don't like the politics of war and we don't like the way it makes us feel about being an American. My gut tells me that the media understands this. They feed us what they want us to know and feel and what serves their purposes. Our negative response to this war supports their political and economic interests. Even positive news can have similar motives. Therefore, I don't believe we can truly understand the reality of the war in Iraq. We perceive the reality of this war from a great distance, through filtered lenses and with much ignorance. War is messy. I learned this when my Grandfather, who was a world war II vet, told me about the rules of war just before he told me about how those rules were frequently broken. Citizens, politicos and journalists can strive for the ideal and refer to rules while soldiers just try to stay alive and deal with a harsh reality of death and destruction. So how can we judge the success or failure of this war? I would like to see some metrics and then ask myself if they match up with my emotional experience and expectations of this war. Until then, I will reserve judgement and try not to get to up or down on our performance in Iraq. Do you guys know of any good sources to consult for a fact based review of our performance in Iraq?
Take care, Bryan
All of that is true for any event that receives media coverage, though; it's not unique to the war. Did we really get an unbiased, fair assessment of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal? Did we really get all the cold, hard facts on Iran-Contra? How do you know who to believe about Watergate, or Vietnam, or Teapot Dome, or the assassination of Julius Caesar, or the Trojan Horse?
The second best thing that one can do is to seek information from a variety of sources. The first best thing that one can do is to apply a conscious dose of skepticism to everything that one hears and sees.
"Success" can only exist where there is a goal. You can't succeed in the abstract; you have to succeed at doing something, at achieving some objective. It is pointless, to my mind, even to begin to ponder whether the war is going "successfully" when I have no idea what the goal of the war even is, and I don't think I'm alone. (I seem to recall a certain red, white, and blue banner--something about "mission accomplished"--but surely the President, upstanding man that he is, would never deceive us that way. I must have dreamed it.)
Steve, you said:
"The first best thing that one can do is to apply a conscious dose of skepticism to everything that one hears and sees."
Should one be skeptical of your advice to be skeptical? I think questioning everything is idealistic. I have found that most of people (including me) are just skeptical of the things they don't want to believe.
You also said:
"It is pointless, to my mind, even to begin to ponder whether the war is going "successfully" when I have no idea what the goal of the war even is, and I don't think I'm alone."
If this is true then one can't say this war has been unsuccessful. If you can't define success then you can't define lack of success. Yet this is exactly what many folks are doing. They are branding this war as a failure, this administration as a failure, etc. If people don't know what the objective is then maybe they aren't qualified to pass judgement.
Should one be skeptical of your advice to be skeptical?
My advice that one should be skeptical is not a claim about or an assertion of a fact. You're obviously free to reject my advice, but you can't say that it's "true" or "false." Skepticism really only applies to determining the truth of something.
If this is true then one can't say this war has been unsuccessful.
I agree. To me, it has merely been pointless. Unless the goal has been to ruin our reputation and kill a lot of people on both sides. Then it's been a smashing success.
Yet this is exactly what many folks are doing. They are branding this war as a failure, this administration as a failure, etc.
Ah, well, now you are lumping a few things together unfairly; whether the war is a failure and whether the administration is a failure are separate questions. In my view, an administration that enters a war with no clearly defined goal in mind is a failure.
If people don't know what the objective is then maybe they aren't qualified to pass judgement.
Various snippets of justification have been offered to us (Iraq has WMDs [wrong], Iraq had something to do with 9/11 [wrong], we must liberate the Iraqi people [screwed that one up]). But I'm talking about a real plan, a real final goal that we want to see. When we leave Iraq, what do we want to be leaving behind, and how are we going to make that happen? The President has yet to reveal this or even give any glimpse into his ideas about it.
Steve, great comments. My remarks about skepticism weren't intended to criticize your advice. I just think being skeptical of everything is unrealistic. I respect your opinions and your observations about the war and the administration. I come to my conclusions about the war from a different perspective. I am an involved and interested American citizen that wants us to succeed in Iraq. When we were attacked on 9/11 I realized the world was going to change. I saw the need for action. I expected action from our nation's leaders. I watched the Bush administration try to work the political angles through the UN, coalions, etc. I saw the uncooperative nature of Sadaam Hussein and his regime. They spurned the UN, Their Allies and the U.S. Many nations believed Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction. He had used them in the past so I believed the threat was credible and possibly immanent (Since some wackos had just flown planes into New York & Washington) I expect the President to act like the Executive branch of our government, which means I expect him to take action and lead. I don't need to know the details or be consulted on such matters. He is the Commander in Chief and he is elected to be decisive and determined. The Congress on the other hand leads from a legislative perspective where debate and concensus are more important. We expect them to be very deliberate and considerate of our views. By their nature they can't act as quickly or decisively. That being said, the President had a reasonable case that Sadaam was a threat and had the weapons to cause harm to the US and others. He took action and I can't look back and fault him for that. I also expected the war's death toll to be greater in the early stages. I expected 10k to 15k U.S. troops killed in the first month. I am saddened by the loss of every precious life. However, I am pleased that my expecations were not met and have yet to be met as far as U.S. death toll is concerned. My whole point is that my expectations have shaped my opinion of this war. I don't demand of the President a zero casualty war or an explanation of every action. Now, we do have a right to evaluate our prosecution of this war and learn from our mistakes. There have been mistakes and some of them have been horrible. I frankly don't care about our reputation as much as I care about our results. When you lead you will make enemies. Have we been narrow minded in our strategy of the war? Yes. Is this war dragging on longer than we all anticipated? Yes. Do I care if every nation thinks we have given their thoughts full consideration...not really. If they were that concerned about being heard and respected then they would have put more pressure on the U.N. to get results at the beginning of this conflict. Some signs of success are this: Sadaam is gone, Iraq is free, Terrorists have yet to strike the U.S. since 9/11, and the list goes on. One can argue that the cost has been too high to acheive these objectives. We just don't know because we don't know what the cost would have been to take no action.
My remarks about skepticism weren't intended to criticize your advice. I just think being skeptical of everything is unrealistic.
Oh, no, I understand, Bryan. I wasn't taking it personally.
Skepticism is not the same as disbelief. I didn't mean to imply that my first instinct, when I hear a piece of information, is to disbelieve it. I make some attempt to evaluate the inherent believability of the statement, and if it seems unusual or far-fetched, then I'll want to see more evidence before I start to believe it. If CNN tells me that the President is going to meet with Tony Blair to discuss the war, I'll probably believe you; that sounds reasonable. If CNN tells me that the President is going to meet with Jerry Seinfeld to discuss breakfast cereal, I'm going to need you to back that up.
When we were attacked on 9/11 I realized the world was going to change. I saw the need for action. I expected action from our nation's leaders.
So did I. I'm still waiting for them to catch Osama bin Laden.
I watched the Bush administration try to work the political angles through the UN, coalions, etc. I saw the uncooperative nature of Sadaam Hussein and his regime.
Well, you're confusing the issue now. Settling the score for 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, as the expert analysts and intelligent officers knew very well. I don't blame the likes of France and Germany and the Security Council for not wanting to get involved in Iraq. There was no reason to.
I don't need to know the details or be consulted on such matters.
When the details involve spending many billions of dollars and sending Americans to die, I expect the details, and I want a say in the matter. If we don't demand accountability from the President on THAT, then what the hell are we doing?
He is the Commander in Chief and he is elected to be decisive and determined.
You can only be "determined" when you have a goal in mind.
That being said, the President had a reasonable case that Sadaam was a threat and had the weapons to cause harm to the US and others.
On this, we will simply have to disagree. We now know that Saddam did not have any WMDs, but even when we thought he might, there was no imminent danger to the United States. To Israel, maybe, or to Iraq's Arab neighbors, but not to us.
I don't demand of the President a zero casualty war or an explanation of every action.
No one expects a zero-casualty war, but because every war does involve casualties, I do expect those wars to be well-founded, well-planned, and carefully considered. This war wasn't any of those things.
If they were that concerned about being heard and respected then they would have put more pressure on the U.N. to get results at the beginning of this conflict.
Well, that's pretty dishonest. "If they were that concerned about being heard and respected, they should have agreed with us"? They wanted nothing to do with Iraq. They gave their opinions loud and clear. The fact that it differs from the President's or from yours does not make them weak or irrelevant.
Terrorists have yet to strike the U.S. since 9/11
To claim this as a success of the administration's programs is also dishonest. Terrorist attacks on US soil weren't happening that often to begin with. This is like that old joke where you tell someone that your wristwatch is an elephant repellent, and then when they say, "But there are no elephants around here," you say, "Exactly!"
I believe we are all missing the bigger picture here. Do you guys realize that we are not in Iraq for the reasons you are discussing? The bigger threat is IRAN. Their government has vowed to wipe America and Israel off the map. We are in Iraq at this point to solely remain in the region. If Iran makes a move, we are there. I'm proud that our government has stayed strong in the face of public dissent. If the democrats get their way, Iran will run wild and even less stability will be the result. Be glad it was Bush behind the trigger instead of Gore. who would have measured our success/failure rate by the tree casualities.
The bigger threat is IRAN. Their government has vowed to wipe America and Israel off the map.
So what? They don't have the capacity to wipe America off the map, first of all, so that means little to me. They can rattle their sabers all they like. Second of all, I would like to see us back off our role as Israel's permanent and unswerving bodyguard.
I'm proud that our government has stayed strong in the face of public dissent.
The public dissent is hardly a knee-jerk reaction. President Bush had public support for this war for a long time. His catastrophic mismanagement of its actual prosecution is what has turned people against him.
If the democrats get their way, Iran will run wild and even less stability will be the result.
Of course, if Saddam were still around, he would serve as a nice counterbalance to any stirrings in Iran. We screwed up the equilibrium.
Ok everyone. Let's keep the hyperbole in check for a while. B Champ. You make some good points, however, let's not veer too far away from the origin of the discussion. We didn't originally go into Iraq to keep Iran in check. Your point is valid in light of current events, however, checking Iran was not given as an objective for this war. I credit President Bush for being "determined" but I wouldn't go so far as to say Al Gore would only measure success by the trees he saved. Al Gore probably wouldn't have gone to war. We will never know. Let's keep civility and respect in our tone on these email exchanges. We are all Americans. We have equal standing before God and as Americans. Let's support our arguments with facts as best we can and challenge each other to embrace the best ideas and solutions. If we differ then that's ok. We can differ in love!!!
By the way Steve, I liked the elephant repellent comment. I think 9/11 could be considered an elephant, however, I did get a chuckle at your analogy and understand your point.
Take care all,
Bryan
I have to say, I will never understand where the notion of "Al Gore is a wussy" came from. I know where the "Al Gore is really boring and has no personality" came from, but at some point, it became fashionable for Republicans to say that Al Gore wouldn't have gone after al-Qaeda after 9/11, which I think is patently ridiculous. There are plenty of spineless dirtbag Democrats, but you'll never convince me that Al Gore is one of them.
Kudos to Bryan for having the mind and the heart to see us all as Americans with a common interest in preserving all the things that make America great. The political atmosphere in this country in the last few years has been virulently divisive, and I think that we could all make much more progress toward peace and prosperity if we took the time to realize that, at the core, we are all after the same things. Politicians from both sides are in the business of painting one party black and the other white, and drawing lines between Us and Them, and it's very unhealthy. Hopefully, in the coming years, we can work toward bringing people together instead of driving them apart.
Steve, Bryan - excuse me for a bit of what may seem excessive flattery, but I am enjoying this debate. You both represent your sides of the political spectrum quite well. I wish the people with the power could do half as well.
Thanks for joining in B Champ. It's hard to raise an issue in the the Middle East in which Iran is not a factor. I think I tend to agree with you a little more than I do Steve about the potential threat Iran represents.
Though Iran cannot harm us militarily today, that would change if they acquired nuclear weapons. It's similar to a child that finds a gun. Without it, there is no way he could harm you, but with it, he could kill you with only the muscles in his finger. Furthermore, like a child, I'm not at all certain that the current Iranian leadership would be deterred by the notion of mutually assured destruction - certainly not to a point that letting them have the weapons is even worth discussing.
I'm on Steve and Bryan's side on Gore though. Limbaugh and Company did a great job portaying him as a wimp in the same manner that they manage to do with every single other Democrat. The fact is, these charges are absolutely baseless. Bush (and even Reagan for that matter) did far less in his life prior to the Presidency to prove their physical, mental and emotional courage than Al Gore did.
On a final note - regarding the comments that were made about how much we have in common - this is perhaps THE critical point that our generation is going to have to find a way to remember.
For example, I do not understand why Democrats or other climate change advocates do not promote the profound alignment of our national security interests with our environmental interests with respect to extricating our economy from oil... I think I will write a piece on this one...:)
Anyway, I'm dangerously close to spinning off on a long tangent so I will close. Thanks again you guys for the good discussion.
One more note - in case it wasnt clear I was referring to W, not his father when I mentioned the demonstations of courage prior to assuming the Presidency.
George H.W. Bush was a true hero in WWII.
Post a Comment