Tuesday, July 22, 2008
When A Victory Becomes A Defeat After A Defeat Becomes A Victory...
It's funny: Republicans may be good at winning/ending wars, but are really bad at reaping the political fruits from them.
Reagan won the Cold War, with the Berlin Wall's subsequent collapse the biggest symbol of that victory. Yet George H. W. Bush's was rather muted given the significance. He never had the political sensibility (or the savvy political advisors) to have any public events around the country to celebrate America's victory over a four-decade foe and seven-decade ideology. Such a recognition for long-term American sacrifice may have helped change the mood of the country in the '89-'90 time period. In such a context, Bush I's subsequent leadership and victory in Persian Gulf War could have earned him a second term (though, as Winston Churchill proved, victory in war guarantees nothing in peacetime).
Briefly...the current Iraq War has, strategically, been won, lost, and won again. Yet, ironically, the architects of that war are about to "lose" it again!
Barack Obama's overseas trip is now looking like a political tour de force, with Nouri Al-Maliki giving him either an accidental or intentional de facto endorsement with his statements outlining atimetable "time horizon" for the withdrawal of American troops.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration and the McCain campaign are left scrambling to explain why what the Iraqis are about withdrawal doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying.
McCain has put himself in an awkward box: On the one hand, he doesn't want to talk about withdrawal of US troops. Yet, on the other hand, he has increasingly ramped up his own triumphalist rhetoric. During the GOP debates, he snapped at opponents who said even innocuous phrases like, "The surge is apparently working." McCain would declare, "Not apparently: the surge is working." Last week, he declared, not that the US is winning in Iraq, but, "We have succeeded."
If that is the case, why stay? If success doesn't mean anything, it undermines his -- and George W. Bush's -- own statements that America must stay in Iraq "until the job is done."
This is exactly why a certain pundit argued nearly two weeks ago that the smartest course for John McCain be to "declare victory -- and get out."
Instead, Obama is happily basking in the Iraqis latching onto his "timetables" rhetoric -- rather than McCain's language of victory and triumph, which appear not to have room for any "real world" adjustments. And so, McCain, architect of the "surge", is about to fumble the rhetorical spoils of the plan to his political adversary.
|
Reagan won the Cold War, with the Berlin Wall's subsequent collapse the biggest symbol of that victory. Yet George H. W. Bush's was rather muted given the significance. He never had the political sensibility (or the savvy political advisors) to have any public events around the country to celebrate America's victory over a four-decade foe and seven-decade ideology. Such a recognition for long-term American sacrifice may have helped change the mood of the country in the '89-'90 time period. In such a context, Bush I's subsequent leadership and victory in Persian Gulf War could have earned him a second term (though, as Winston Churchill proved, victory in war guarantees nothing in peacetime).
Briefly...the current Iraq War has, strategically, been won, lost, and won again. Yet, ironically, the architects of that war are about to "lose" it again!
Barack Obama's overseas trip is now looking like a political tour de force, with Nouri Al-Maliki giving him either an accidental or intentional de facto endorsement with his statements outlining a
Meanwhile, the Bush administration and the McCain campaign are left scrambling to explain why what the Iraqis are about withdrawal doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying.
McCain has put himself in an awkward box: On the one hand, he doesn't want to talk about withdrawal of US troops. Yet, on the other hand, he has increasingly ramped up his own triumphalist rhetoric. During the GOP debates, he snapped at opponents who said even innocuous phrases like, "The surge is apparently working." McCain would declare, "Not apparently: the surge is working." Last week, he declared, not that the US is winning in Iraq, but, "We have succeeded."
If that is the case, why stay? If success doesn't mean anything, it undermines his -- and George W. Bush's -- own statements that America must stay in Iraq "until the job is done."
This is exactly why a certain pundit argued nearly two weeks ago that the smartest course for John McCain be to "declare victory -- and get out."
Instead, Obama is happily basking in the Iraqis latching onto his "timetables" rhetoric -- rather than McCain's language of victory and triumph, which appear not to have room for any "real world" adjustments. And so, McCain, architect of the "surge", is about to fumble the rhetorical spoils of the plan to his political adversary.
Labels: Barack Obama, Iraq War, John McCain
Friday, September 14, 2007
Aid & Comfort
The above phrase is often used by pro-war individuals against their anti-war opponents, as in, "Publically opposing the war gives 'aid and comfort' to the enemy."
Well, after the last few days, anti-war people should be glaring at MoveOn.org for giving "aid and comfort" to George W. Bush and his war effort. What began as a week when the administration should have been on the defensive because of the reality of Iraq vs. why the war was launched and its various changing rationales -- instead became a storyline of a radical left-wing group smearing a credentialed, respected general. And sure enough, Republicans -- despite their own misgivings over the war -- all united against the MoveOn/New York Times nexis. Conversely, Democrats were divided over whether they should condemnn MoveOn's ad or just ignore it. The president's speech, remarkably, is now an afterthought.
On top of that, the most aggressive (tempermentally, if not programattically) GOP candidate didn't waste time in, as The Weekly Standard puts it, "hitting the trifecta" -- going after MoveOn, Hillary and the Times.
Instead of debating Bush (failed?) policy, this weekend's Sunday talk shows (which are intrinsically skewed more toward politics than policy) will likely devote far more time to the MoveOn ad and what it says about an "anti-military" Democratic Party rather than the weaknesses of Bush's position and its impact on Republican fortunes next year.
The Petraeus hearings became an amazingly bungled opportunity for the Democrats that may have ripples for months to come -- all because of the rash action of an irresponsible ally.
UPDATE: Now edited to fix second-to-last "paragraph to nowhere" editorial screw-up.
|
Well, after the last few days, anti-war people should be glaring at MoveOn.org for giving "aid and comfort" to George W. Bush and his war effort. What began as a week when the administration should have been on the defensive because of the reality of Iraq vs. why the war was launched and its various changing rationales -- instead became a storyline of a radical left-wing group smearing a credentialed, respected general. And sure enough, Republicans -- despite their own misgivings over the war -- all united against the MoveOn/New York Times nexis. Conversely, Democrats were divided over whether they should condemnn MoveOn's ad or just ignore it. The president's speech, remarkably, is now an afterthought.
On top of that, the most aggressive (tempermentally, if not programattically) GOP candidate didn't waste time in, as The Weekly Standard puts it, "hitting the trifecta" -- going after MoveOn, Hillary and the Times.
Instead of debating Bush (failed?) policy, this weekend's Sunday talk shows (which are intrinsically skewed more toward politics than policy) will likely devote far more time to the MoveOn ad and what it says about an "anti-military" Democratic Party rather than the weaknesses of Bush's position and its impact on Republican fortunes next year.
The Petraeus hearings became an amazingly bungled opportunity for the Democrats that may have ripples for months to come -- all because of the rash action of an irresponsible ally.
UPDATE: Now edited to fix second-to-last "paragraph to nowhere" editorial screw-up.
Labels: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Iraq War, MoveOn.org
Monday, September 10, 2007
"Surge On" General Reports
The Petraeus and (Amb. Ryan) Crocker testimonies to Congress start today. It would appear that everyone already knows what they will say: Finally, a relatively good military strategy -- without a parallel political improvement.
The upshot of this means? A "holding pattern" until the next "showdown over Iraq policy" -- sometime next spring. So, for those who are pro-war, this counts as a "win."
|
The upshot of this means? A "holding pattern" until the next "showdown over Iraq policy" -- sometime next spring. So, for those who are pro-war, this counts as a "win."
Labels: David Petraeus, Iraq War
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Everyone Agrees
Even President Bush says Iraq is the new Vietnam!
Or has the potential to be!
Consensus at last!
|
Or has the potential to be!
Consensus at last!
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq War
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Our Man In Baghdad
My friend Capt. Dan McSweeney of the United States Marine Corps, following his May graduation from Columbia U.'s School of International Public Affairs (SIPA) is spending his summer in Iraq (he previously spent time over there in 2003 as part of the 24th MEU), helping provide communications assistance for General David Petraeus.
This is Dan (at the Marine Corps Birthday Bash a couple years back).
Anyway, he has provided a few entries to SIPA's blog, The Morningside Post.
Depending on your perspective, you might find them interesting or just blatant government-sanctioned propaganda. I find them the former.
Read them here, here, here and here.
Stay well, pal.
Labels: Dan McSweeney, Iraq War
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Are Republicans Revolting?
Yeah, yeah, of course the headline is a joke set up!
Of course, what I mean is the break from George W. Bush on Iraq by people like Richard Lugar of Indiana.
George Voinovich (he of the crying on the Senate floor over John Bolton) wavering on Iraq isn't big news. Lugar peeling away is.
|
Of course, what I mean is the break from George W. Bush on Iraq by people like Richard Lugar of Indiana.
George Voinovich (he of the crying on the Senate floor over John Bolton) wavering on Iraq isn't big news. Lugar peeling away is.
Labels: George W. Bush, Iraq War, Richard Lugar
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Fundamental Contradiction...
...in our current foreign policy is noted by Andrew Sullivan: Democracy just ain't what it's cracked up to be in the Middles East.
Meanwhile, we decided to back (and arm) Fatah, the "moderate" faction of Palestinians -- and they go get their Hamasses handed to them by a better trained fundamentalist opponent.
So, what do we do in Iraq -- arm marginally more secular Sunni insurgents against al Qaeda in Iraq fundamentalists?
Result -- a marginal "win" for the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province -- for now. Of course, the government of Nuri al-Maliki, is fundamentalist Shiite. How soon before our erstwhile allies take the same arms we've given them and turn them against the Shiite majority -- thus creating enough anarchy to force us to step in between the two factions once again?
While being shot at with our own guns?
I sort of understand the tactical reasons for doing this, but after a while when you do make the same tactical move which ends up backfiring, shouldn't it call into question the overarching strategy which the tactics were supposed to implement?
|
Meanwhile, we decided to back (and arm) Fatah, the "moderate" faction of Palestinians -- and they go get their Hamasses handed to them by a better trained fundamentalist opponent.
So, what do we do in Iraq -- arm marginally more secular Sunni insurgents against al Qaeda in Iraq fundamentalists?
Result -- a marginal "win" for the Sunni insurgents in Anbar province -- for now. Of course, the government of Nuri al-Maliki, is fundamentalist Shiite. How soon before our erstwhile allies take the same arms we've given them and turn them against the Shiite majority -- thus creating enough anarchy to force us to step in between the two factions once again?
While being shot at with our own guns?
I sort of understand the tactical reasons for doing this, but after a while when you do make the same tactical move which ends up backfiring, shouldn't it call into question the overarching strategy which the tactics were supposed to implement?
Labels: Fatah, Hamas, Iraq War, Palestinians, Shiites, Sunnis
Friday, June 15, 2007
Harry Reid: Incompetent
Democrats may regret for a long time their misfortune of having Harry Reid as their Senate majority leader. Earlier this week, on a conference call with liberal blogers, he referred to outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace as incompetent. The story was reported Thursday in The Politico.
Not surprisingly, all day yesterday, most of the conservative side of the blogosphere, plus presidential candidate John McCain -- pilloried Reid. Liberal bloggers were relatively silent, except for those that chose to attack the reporting of The Politico (which has been viewed skeptically by those on the left since it first started).
But now that a transcript of the conversation has come to light, along comes Taylor Marsh, a left wing blogger who puts the fault where it belongs -- with Sen. Reid:
The thing is that whether Pace is incompetent with respect to his military responsibilities, it seems pretty clear that he is somewhat dense in understanding political Washington: For example, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no business writing a letter of support for a defendant in the most politically radioactive case to hit the nation's capitol in years. Even if he thinks Libby is a good guy, Pace's got to think that inserting himself into a case that involves how the Iraq war was "sold" is likely not a wise thing to do when one's re-confirmation is coming up. The JCS chair is, ultimately, a political job and it takes a canny personality to survive it (love him or hate him, Colin Powell, certainly had the political chops to thrive in that job).
So, Reid could have been up front with the press on why he thought Pace wasn't the man for the job; he could have admitted using the "I" word. Instead, he tried to duck it -- and hoped that his liberal blogger troops would protect him from the firestorm that his own words created. That just makes him look craven.
And, of course, the conversation being had right now is about what Harry Reid did or didn't say about Pace -- as opposed to the daily carnage going on in Iraq. When Senate Democrats go seeking competence, do they find any in their leaders office ?
|
Not surprisingly, all day yesterday, most of the conservative side of the blogosphere, plus presidential candidate John McCain -- pilloried Reid. Liberal bloggers were relatively silent, except for those that chose to attack the reporting of The Politico (which has been viewed skeptically by those on the left since it first started).
But now that a transcript of the conversation has come to light, along comes Taylor Marsh, a left wing blogger who puts the fault where it belongs -- with Sen. Reid:
Everyone is now going to be talking about the "context" of Reid's remarks, which is important. He has supposedly told Pace to his face what he thinks of him. Good for Reid, that's what any person of character should do. Senator Reid has many supporters in the military. He's earned them and I'm sure those who support him will continue to do so.Why not? Well, because Reid doesn't have the courage of his convictions. After being slammed for his "war is lost" comment (an arguably defensible statement), Reid appears gun-shy on military issues. So, he had his fingers crossed that there would be no tape of the conversation (or prayed that no liberal blogger would "out" him).
However, it doesn't make this event any less newsworthy. "Context" doesn't matter to most people when you hear the quote. Reid said it. It's confirmed. Cable news and talk radio will now be using it forever against Reid and the Democrats. In addition, when you weigh the Congress, which has a 23% approval rating, against what the American people think of the U.S. military, let's just say Congress loses. You don't get anywhere by calling a chairman of the Joint Chiefs "incompetent." If you're going to level a charge make it specific and cite the situation in which the soldier failed. Letting bin Laden go at Tora Bora comes to mind. But blanket charges just won't get the job done.
The other aspect is that this is a gift for the Republicans. They've been salivating to reclaim their "strong on national security" title, which has been slipping to Democrats through the '06 election. Iraq continues to erode their stength on national security. This issue has always been the political brass ring for the GOP, but now they get to question Reid and the congressional Democrats' "supporting the troops" reality, because they've been handed a quote. This is about restoring confidence in them and winning back what they've lost. It rallies their base big time. As much trouble as they're in they can't afford to pass that up. Lord knows we wouldn't.
As for the conference call itself, this turned into an unnecessary mess. What made it worse is that no one from Reid's office was confirming it, while Sargent said Reid sidestepped the question on whether he said it, which was the tell in this whole tale, as I wrote earlier.
Now, after a day to let the story unwind, conservatives got to frame it. That's not anyone's fault but Majority Leader Harry Reid and his office. If we were going to get this quote eventually, why not have it ready from the start; or at least confirm that Reid said what he said.
The thing is that whether Pace is incompetent with respect to his military responsibilities, it seems pretty clear that he is somewhat dense in understanding political Washington: For example, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no business writing a letter of support for a defendant in the most politically radioactive case to hit the nation's capitol in years. Even if he thinks Libby is a good guy, Pace's got to think that inserting himself into a case that involves how the Iraq war was "sold" is likely not a wise thing to do when one's re-confirmation is coming up. The JCS chair is, ultimately, a political job and it takes a canny personality to survive it (love him or hate him, Colin Powell, certainly had the political chops to thrive in that job).
So, Reid could have been up front with the press on why he thought Pace wasn't the man for the job; he could have admitted using the "I" word. Instead, he tried to duck it -- and hoped that his liberal blogger troops would protect him from the firestorm that his own words created. That just makes him look craven.
And, of course, the conversation being had right now is about what Harry Reid did or didn't say about Pace -- as opposed to the daily carnage going on in Iraq. When Senate Democrats go seeking competence, do they find any in their leaders office ?
Labels: Harry Reid, incompetent, Iraq War, Peter Pace, Politico
Friday, May 18, 2007
Ron's Right Stuff
Andrew Sullivan points out conservative defenders of Ron Paul.
He also points to Slate's John Dickerson (not a conservative) who puts forward basic common sense reasons why Paul shouldn't be jettisoned from future debates. Dickerson, by the way, raises a question that's been bothering me for a while: It seems OK to "heed" Osama bin Laden's words when it supports the stay-in-Iraq position -- during the presidential debate, McCain said (about the 2:21 minute mark in the first part of the Fox debate video), "You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda; they'll tell ya: They want to follow us home." (Like a puppy?). However, given the response to Paul, it would appear to be verboten to listen to what bin Laden actually said with regard to his declared "fatwah" on America.
As Dickerston reports:
|
He also points to Slate's John Dickerson (not a conservative) who puts forward basic common sense reasons why Paul shouldn't be jettisoned from future debates. Dickerson, by the way, raises a question that's been bothering me for a while: It seems OK to "heed" Osama bin Laden's words when it supports the stay-in-Iraq position -- during the presidential debate, McCain said (about the 2:21 minute mark in the first part of the Fox debate video), "You read Zarqawi, you read bin Laden, you read al Qaeda; they'll tell ya: They want to follow us home." (Like a puppy?). However, given the response to Paul, it would appear to be verboten to listen to what bin Laden actually said with regard to his declared "fatwah" on America.
As Dickerston reports:
Here's just one instance, from 1996, in which Bin Laden in one of his declarations of war said exactly what Paul claims: "More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanctions) imposed on Iraq and its people. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime, are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, whatever treaty you have with our country is now null and void."In short, Paul wasn't crazy in articulating one of bin Laden's declared motives for wishing to attack the United States. Paul's not offering an excuse for an horrific crime -- or suggesting that America deserved to be attacked (anymore than a murder victim "deserves" to be killed because of various jealousies and hatreds on the part of the murderer). He is, however, saying that American foreign policy is a reason stated by bin Laden and al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Besides, there are any number of foreign policy experts on the right and left who point to the America's pre-9/11 problematic relationship with various Arab regimes as one reason why "we are hated."
Labels: GOP 2008 President, Iraq War, Ron Paul, war on terror
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Czar Lute?
Apparently, Czar "Juice" Harp, Czar "Lead" Guitar and Czar "War" Drum were unavailable for this position coordinating Iraq policy.
And, of course, Czar Lyre was rejected for rather obvious reasons.
His Iraqi counterpart, Czar Qawai, was unavailable for comment.
|
And, of course, Czar Lyre was rejected for rather obvious reasons.
His Iraqi counterpart, Czar Qawai, was unavailable for comment.
Labels: Iraq War, political humor
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Condolences
Very tragic news.
Last summer when I traveled to China, the person I was most gratified meeting was Andrew Bacevich, an Army veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University. He's a very smart guy and one of the keenest analysts of U.S. foreign policy from the conservative "realist" perspective.
Anyway, Josh Marshall posted last night about the death of Andrew's 27 year-old son, serving in Iraq.
My condolences to the entire Bacevich family.
UPDATE: A Boston Globe story on the Baceviches.
|
Last summer when I traveled to China, the person I was most gratified meeting was Andrew Bacevich, an Army veteran and professor of international relations at Boston University. He's a very smart guy and one of the keenest analysts of U.S. foreign policy from the conservative "realist" perspective.
Anyway, Josh Marshall posted last night about the death of Andrew's 27 year-old son, serving in Iraq.
My condolences to the entire Bacevich family.
UPDATE: A Boston Globe story on the Baceviches.
Labels: Andrew Bacevich, Iraq War
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Which George Is Worse?
George Tenet -- for not being more aggressive in spelling out the dangers of going into Iraq or resigning out of principle when the entire project fell apart or declining the Presidential Medal of Freedom when it was offered and now offering a ridiculously belated mea culpa?
Or George W. Bush -- for not replacing Tenet (a Clinton appointee) when Bush took office in '01, or after 9/11, or after the "slam-dunk" fiasco -- or for giving him the frickin' medal in the first place!!!
Discuss -- and flip a coin.
|
Or George W. Bush -- for not replacing Tenet (a Clinton appointee) when Bush took office in '01, or after 9/11, or after the "slam-dunk" fiasco -- or for giving him the frickin' medal in the first place!!!
Discuss -- and flip a coin.
Labels: CIA, George Tenet, George W. Bush, Iraq War
