Cindy Sheehan, Democratic Savior? Posted by David Adesnik

No matter what you think of her politics, you have to give Cindy Sheehan credit for staging one of the most brilliant pieces of political theater that Americans have encountered in a very long time.

Conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly have blasted the liberal media for lavishing attention on an unworthy protest, but that hardly takes away from what Sheehan has accomplished.  After all, there are countless efforts made by anti-war protesters which don't result in this kind of coverage.  But Sheehan did a perfect job of framing herself as a lonely voice in the wilderness of Crawford, attempting to soften the heart of an American pharoah hiding behind the darkened windows of his limousine.  And as the NYT points out, Sheehan had the good luck (or perhaps the good sense) to stage her protest in the "slow news month" of August, when journalists are almost desperate for news.

But the broader question here for Democrats is not whether they can learn from Sheehan's tactics, but whether they should embrace her success as the foundation for a full-frontal assault on Bush's war policy.  Thus we come back to the question of what exactly Sheehan's politics are.  Although Sheehan hasn't been terribly consistent in her criticism of Bush, there is no question about what her politics are now: The war in Iraq is not a noble cause.  Pull out now before any more of our soldiers get killed.

In a certain sense, the question of whether or not to embrace Sheehan is same as the question Democrats faced in January of 2004: Should the party close ranks behind a charismatic anti-war firebrand or should it run to the center by adopting a more nuanced approach to the war?  My sense is that John Kerry's loss has led numerous Democrats to embrace the Sheehan approach.

For example, over at TPM Cafe, blogger cscs asks:

Cindy Sheehan has a simple question for the President:

Is Iraq a noble cause?...I believe Democrats who advocate a "stay the course" plan for Iraq have a responsibility to answer the same question.

So, is Iraq a noble cause?

This question generated 64 responses, almost all of which describe the war in Iraq as a manifest failure, both moral and strategic, that must be brought to an end right now.  Yet as one of those commentators pointed, leading Democrats such as Bill Clinton adamantly insist that we must stand by the people of Iraq as they embark on one of the most improbable and ambitious transitions to democracy in the history of the modern world.

Moreover, Clinton insists that one's support or opposition to the initial invasion of Iraq is absolutely irrelevant to whether we should stand by its people now, in their time of need.  That is the moral case for staying in Iraq and describing it as a noble cause.  Although Cindy Sheehan relentlessly speaks the language of compassion, she never seems to address the question of whether there are Iraqi mothers just like herself who are sending their sons out to fight an extremely dangerous war against Ba'athist and Al Qaeda terrorism and therefore deserve American support that will save many of their children's lives.

But in addition to the moral question of whether to stay the course in Iraq, there is the strategic question as well.  If we pull out of Iraq, then what?  This is another question that neither Sheehan nor her supporters seems willing to answer.  What if the low-grade civil war in progress today erupts into a full-scale bloodletting of the kind that took place in the aftermath of the first Gulf War?  And what if the Ba'athists and their Al Qaeda allies prevail in that war and transform Iraq into a staging ground for internation terrorists attacks, a la Afghanistan except with oil?

But perhaps the most important question for those who support Sheehan is not moral or strategic but partisan politcal.  The advocates of a pullout seem confident in their conviction that it is the moral and practical thing to do.  But what about 2008?

You can call Bush either stubborn or principled, but the bottom line is that he seems dead set on keeping tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq for as long as he is President.  And the Republican Congress seems to have few qualms about providing Bush with the necessary funds.  Recently, there has been widespread speculation in the media about the administration's semi-secret plan to pull out, but those stories never seem to pan out.

So what we are looking at for 2008 is another scenario, similar to 2004, in which American soldiers are fighting for their lives and the Democrats aren't sure whether the centrist voters that decide presidential elections will trust a Democratic party that continues to embrace its Vietnam heritage of demanding prudent withdrawals rather than investing ever more resources in the prospect of victory.

My intuition is that the response of centrists will depend on just how badly the war is going.  What the Democrats really need in order to make their anti-war stance both marketable and credible is for the army itself to turn against the war, along with a good number of prominent Republicans.  Otherwise, the GOP will once again be able to brand the Democrats as the party of appeasement and surrender. 

That is really what's at stake in the debate about Cindy Sheehan.  The Democrats have to decide whether they are willing to gamble their political future on the United States losing another war in the manner that it lost Vietnam.  Even opposing that sort of quagmire has had an enduring impact on the Democrats' reputation as guardian of our national security.  If democracy prevails in Iraq, the Democrats may find that they have cemented their status as the minority party of this generation. 

Comments

[Dan Nexon]

" My sense is that John Kerry's loss has led numerous Democrats to embrace the Sheehan approach.

For example, over at TPM Cafe, blogger cscs asks..."

While you're at it, why not do a quick impressionistic reading of dailykos or freerepublic to get a sense of the liberal and conservative pulse?

Come on David, you can provide better evidence than this!

"If democracy prevails in Iraq, the Democrats may find that they have cemented their status as the minority party of this generation."

Is the converse true? Because there are already stories about the administration starting the "diminished expectations" game...

[Mike Collins]

Love your slant, a cavalier attitude regarding war with Iraq went a long way toward isolating the US on the real war against terror, has practically destroyed our effective ground fighting forces and equipment. Even worse, it appears that war profiteering has reached a level that is not only unsustainable, but will be hard to defend in any court of law. I am hopeful there will be a trial in the senate, a genuine twofer, with Cheney and his puppet getting prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[David]

Hey, Dan. Good to hear from you. Btw, you still owe those citations on discursive entrapment.

With regard to TPM Cafe, I'm not relying on it as definitive evidence of where the Democratic party now stands vis a vis Iraq, just as an illustration of the growing strength of the left. Do you think that the stay-the-course wing of the party is actually gaining momentum, or did you just want more evidence from me?

And Mike C., I'm glad to see you're looking forward to a trial in the Senate. The last one we had was really great for this country.

[jill]

I don't think the Bush administration is planning to stay the course. All of the indications are that they are planning to cut and run next year, after declaring a partial victory and blaming all problems on the liberals. It is going to make for some very interesting campaigns as Rethugs (and for the most apart that's exactly what their politicians are) try to frame the pullouts as a victory and Democrats advocate staying or slower pullouts, because, as you say, the genuinely honorable action is to help the Iraqis now.
I do think all Democratic politicians and opinion leaders should admit that we should not have invaded and they and should be loudly and at great length condemning the Bush administration for the horrible mistake of starting the war, the incompetent occupation, and the dishonesty of proclaiming victory in the reality of defeat. We should withdraw our support for any Democrat who is still enabling the Rethugs by supporting the initial invasion. Anyone who can't see what a mistake that was doesn't belong in our party.

[KARIN]

whomever wrote this post--i pray you enlist or re enlist or drive a truck in iraq-get up and go now and make the democrats a permanent minority party. otherwise, there will be no Americans left to secure iraq, except for contractors, and then blessedly, the public will see republicans for what they are...traitors, treasonous chickens, and liars who are corrupt. so get up and go fight. this was one of the most meaningless posts I have read on this subject. this is so stupid, i can't believe someone had the audacity to post it. ta ta have fun in iraq. if you come back without some limbs or in a wheelchair forever or perhaps brain deader than you are...remember it was a noble cause you got blown up for. your noble cause not the majority of americans.

[Sherry]

Anyone know the Dixie Chicks? Tool? Bush is cornered in Crawford and the media's there, but as of yesterday there were only 300 of us demonstrating. The college kids have a couple of weeks before classes resume, which means the demographic most opposed to the war in Iraq has some time on their hands. Bring the music and they'll come to the dance. Throw in a couple of charismatic liberal speakers and by next Saturday the Democratic Party could be looking at a revolution.

[David]

Sherry, it's great to hear from people who are on the ground in Crawford. I may disagree with what the protesters there are advocating, but I am all for direct reporting that lets as many people as possible get an unfiltered perspective on the news. I hope you keep reading DA and would be glad to post some of your observations as blog posts rather than comments.

Karin, thanks for keeping the tenor of debate civlized and promoting substantive discussion instead of personal attacks.

Jill, my response to your prediction would be to ask why Democrats have been predicting since the late summer of 2003 that Bush would cut and run, but he hasn't? Is it because those predictions are just a reflection of Democrats are hoping for and not what Bush wants?

[Nate]

An excellent piece of analysis, David. The most salient part for me was perhaps the fact that in framing their opposition to the war through the prism of a mother grieving for her son, the Democrats risk coming across as selfish and inwardly focused, and craven. In this sense the Democrats would be abandoning the truly liberal ethos espoused by JFK that America is willing to fight for freedom anywhere, anytime, because these are the principles that American stands for. (I suppose one could say they lost that during Vietnam)

I don't mean to dismiss Democratic criticism of Bush's handling of the war as I say these words. I myself supported the war, but voted for Kerry because I thought he was more capable of handling the reins in this crucial endeavor. But I would appreciate more Democrats realizing this isn't just about American troops, it is also about an oppressed people fighting for their lives to build a workable society. If you want to give up on that hope, that is fine, but don't think you are morally superior in doing so. And in lionizing Cindy Sheehan I would hope you realize if a new, peacable Iraq can be established than her son most decidely will not have died in vain, so how about leavening your cynicism with a little hope and support for the men and women, Iraqi and American, putting their lives on the line for such a goal.

[annie]

while i agree with most everything else in the above article, i fail to see how bill clinton's opinion is relevant. if i recall correctly, he is a liar and a murderer, same as bush. remember? bill clinton bombed iraq, killing god knows how many civilians. there is no doubt in my mind that he has an equal stake in maintaining the current staus quo as, say, rumsfeld. it's time to ask some serious questions about the war and the role of the economic elite within it. who dies first? who laughs last?

[Jos Bleau]

It's no accident that the Dems are talking about Sheehan like they were talking about Howard Dean 2 years ago. In both cases, Joe Trippi was running the media show ... Say, how's President Dean been doin' lately?

[Angryman]

Hey Nate, why don't you let Cindy Sheehan decide if her son died in vain or not. It ain't your son that got murdered by Bush's lying.

And David you write this:
"Although Cindy Sheehan relentlessly speaks the language of compassion, she never seems to address the question of whether there are Iraqi mothers just like herself who are sending their sons out to fight an extremely dangerous war against Ba'athist and Al Qaeda terrorism and therefore deserve American support that will save many of their children's lives."

and you don't expect a personal attack? Jesus Christ, do you have kids? I do, and frankly I care a whole hell of lot more for my own kids than I do for someone else's. And if my kid was slaughtered in a BS war like this one, you can bet your neocon-wannabe ass that I'd be making a fuss over it, regardless of what sacrifices someone is making in the country where he died. That you expect Cindy Sheehan to feel differently just shows how far you Democracy Arsenal clowns are removed from mainstream humanity.

Sacrifice your own goddamn kids.

[Dan Kervick]

..."An excellent piece of analysis, David. The most salient part for me was perhaps the fact that in framing their opposition to the war through the prism of a mother grieving for her son, the Democrats risk coming across as selfish and inwardly focused, and craven. In this sense the Democrats would be abandoning the truly liberal ethos espoused by JFK that America is willing to fight for freedom anywhere, anytime, because these are the principles that American stands for. (I suppose one could say they lost that during Vietnam)"...

As a father of a fifteen year-old son, you'll have to forgive me for feeling just a touch more solidarity with the mother of a dead son, and with all those other selfish, inwardly focussed and craven mothers and fathers out there - who rather inexplicably care more about their own sons than they do other people's sons - than I feel with John Kennedy and his lofty poetry.

My estimate is that the trouble we have started in Iraq is going to spread now, and it doesn't much matter whether we withdraw or don't withdraw. The die is cast, and that whole damn region will likely soon be embroiled in a major regional war, a war which may very well grow into a world war as a lot of very nervous and very interested outside parties enter the fray one by one in order to secure their share of the petroleum spoils that will go to the victors, or simply avoid the destitution that will come to the losers.

Since I think this is now the likely outcome of this adventure, but I don't think this was at all inevitable in say, 2002, before the fatal decision was made, you can perhaps begin to imagine the depth of my ... disappointment ... with the choices my government and many of my fellow-citizens have made. I lay the mess at the feet of that whole sainted gang of meddling ideologues and wild-eyed enthusiasts for "democracy" and "freedom" - the fanatics on both the left and the right. Thank you *very much* for fucking up the world I hoped my son would inherit.

Soon the shortage of military manpower will be so evident and inescapable that these liberty-loving butchers will begin to come for more of the sons of the craven and inward-looking. My son, who will be a man soon, may choose to go fight in their sorry disaster, in which case I will support him with a heavy heart. But if he does not wish to go to finish the job you wild talkers started, I will *certainly* support that decision as well. And if you come to try to get him anyway, it will be over my cold, dead body. This is deadly serious business to me, and very personal. It's not some graduate school seminar for me.

I am actually a rather compassionate man. I tend to get rather agitated by mental images of Iraqi children being blown into grotesque little oozing bits in front their parents. Indeed, images like that have haunted my days for a couple of years now, and cast a dismal, gray shadow over everyday life. And again, perhaps strangely, I tend to feel more distressed by the fact that these people's children have been blown up, and that they don't have jobs anymore, and that their streets stink of standing sewage, and that they can't always read the books they own because their electricity is indifferently reliable, and that their country is a violence and military-infested hell-on-earth than I do about the fact that under Saddam they couldn't vote for the candidate of their choosing in a system substantially like the marvelous two-party plutocracy which we enjoy here.

So I am compassionate. I really do feel for these people. But I don't love them. There are only a small handful of things I do love in this sorry world, and my boy is at the very top of the list.

Most of these self-avowed freedom fighters are not actually fighting for freedom "anywhere", and "anytime", as their hero commanded. They are talking, and writing, and talking some more, and fantasizing in their daydreams about how they may fight for freedom some day, some place, against someone. I think they squeeze these fantasies in between their wet dreams about rescuing pretty maidens, and the dryer dreams about dueling Darth Vadar and Doctor Octopus to the death.

[Nate]

I admire your passion, Dan. Your compassion, however, seems subsumed by your contempt for the majority that populate and are responsible for this "sorry world."

[Robert Drake]

But in addition to the moral question of whether to stay the course in Iraq, there is the strategic question as well. If we pull out of Iraq, then what? This is another question that neither Sheehan nor her supporters seems willing to answer. What if the low-grade civil war in progress today erupts into a full-scale bloodletting of the kind that took place in the aftermath of the first Gulf War? And what if the Ba'athists and their Al Qaeda allies prevail in that war and transform Iraq into a staging ground for internation terrorists attacks, a la Afghanistan except with oil?

This is a rather dubious question to ask of Cindy Sheehan, or her supporters, when serious, supposedly erudite foreign policy wonks who favor staying the course in Iraq cannot answer the same questions.

What happens if we stay ten-years, kill a 100K Iraqis, 10K Americans, leave, and the civil war erupts anyway?
What happens to the all-important ability of the United States to project force around the globe with a national treasury that is bankrupt, and an army that is shattered? How are America's enemies strengthed by a long-term occupation of Iraq? Will the continued hollowing out of Iraqi civil society by a violent American occupation strengthen Iran's influence in a post-occupation Iraq? What about the new generation of battle-tested jihadists? How is America's interest served by providing a laboratory for AQ and other Iraqi insurgents to develop strategies and tactics to counter our own military doctrine?

[Orson]

Well, I used to think that Democrats respected adult choice-making, like whether or not to have an abortion. (And therefore I stayed a Democrat for a long time.) But apparently not Angyman (who-yes-I assume to be a Democrat), castigating Nate: "why don't you let Cindy Sheehan decide if her son died in vain or not."

Actually, Casey re-enlisted and sought more hazardous duty deliberately, and did so as an adult choice - something people ought to at least respect, if they can't admire him. Similarly, the biggest impediments for a successful leftward lurch among the voters is that most soldiers support their mission (and therefore the President), and that as each goal in Iraqi democritization keeps being met, the effort moves closer to success. This keeps politicized Dems from reality testing; they are unduly surprised by each success because the media deludes them to anticipate crushing failure. Several people above are ready to announce "failure" with little or no consideration of the evidence. Wishful thinking is no basis for political strategizing.

(Few here - perhaps no one - apparently realize that many successful functioning governments face "resistance movements," which is Iraq's likeliest future. By one count in the US there are nine such movements right now. But does anyone here live in fear of Los Machetos or Aryan Nations? Nope.)

Furthermore, David, your analysis lacks any appreciation of the fact that American's aren't any longer engaged in what deserves to called 9/11- or "terror consciousness," as they were for three and a half years after that dread day. Lots and lots of polls confirm that after the GWOT lasted longer than WWII, and after the last presidential election, Americans have started tuning out the news. Whether electronic or newspaper coverage, ratings and readership went into steep declines last winter; the memory of regular elevated terror alerts faded and because war fatigue set in. A much hyped election does that to people! Breather time.

Along with the widespread public tune-out, the media's capability to shape people's awareness that Newsweek's Evan Thomas presumed the mainstrem media had (to deliver 4 to 7 percentage points for Kerry) last July has now returned - at the surface. Recently, and today, polls and people are reacting more to headlines and a superficial knowledge of politics. It first manifested during Shiavo fatique last spring. In other words, with a return to normalcy, American's returned to their insular self-concerns that define our polity.

As London bombings in July proved, all this could change quickly should there be a US domestic terror attack. The political Left wishes otherwise - but they're wrong. The Left comforts itself with an importance of the politcal to the rest of America that it won't have until over a year from now.

The fact is that American's distrust the media as much as they loath politicians in general (although not their own Congressman or woman, paradoxically). By contrast, most American's trust and admire the military more than almost any other institution. This is the hill-climb David doesn't mention. Can Sheehan give the antiwar Left a lift up in meaningful popularity during the dog days of August? Very doubtfully.

But I am impressed that the mainstream media has re-taken control of the politicial debate after failing to for several years. Observe Dan's unvarnished and unmeasured negativism above: "My estimate is that the trouble we have started in Iraq is going to spread now. . . and that whole damn region will likely soon be embroiled in a major regional war." People tell posters that economic times are bad when they aren't. For instance, studies show that media coverage of the objectively positive economic news under Republicans is one-fourth than when a Democrat is president - and Bush's fifth year (painted as doubtful if not dire) compared with Clinton's 1997 (best economy ever) show that this fact (when it's about the same now as then) is even more starkly true.

Yet facts are stubborn things and this remains clear: reading much, if anything, into recent events, as David invites us to, is a suckers bet. The Bushies don't genuflect at the polls, like the Clinton White House did. I read a recent poll contrasting American's belief in optimism about their futures - more than double (64%) than thirteen EU countries results. Democrats selling pessimism in the US is very unlikely to sell anywhere near as well as it does abroad, where vote don't count for them.

Dems can't compete with the Pubbies until they unlock some palpable and substantive alliance with optimism - something dashed for the clueless antiwar Left every time a bomb goes off. The obvious admixture of anger, pessimism, and hope in comments above is probative enough to prove the point.

[Robert Drake]

(Few here - perhaps no one - apparently realize that many successful functioning governments face "resistance movements," which is Iraq's likeliest future. By one count in the US there are nine such movements right now. But does anyone here live in fear of Los Machetos or Aryan Nations? Nope.)

This statement borders on the absurd. It belongs to that genre of right-wing cant much in evidence last year, when the bellowing idealogues at The Weekly Standard could not figure out why the media was not reporting all the good news in Iraq. Why dwell on assassinations, bombings, dead soldiers, unemployment and lack of electricity. We're optimists here, we have happy, shiny faces to sell. If the American people are not hearing the good news, it's because the liberal media refuses to tell you about it. It's morning in Iraq after all. The only thing missing is a visage of Ronald Reagan.

Comparing the Iraqi resistance which has already killed 1,800 American soldiers, and maimed tens of thousands more, with Los Machetos, or the Aryan Nations is worthy of farce. It's a statement of pure desperation, and abject stupidity. The perspective of our generals on such a comparison would surely be entertaining. I'd like a single example of a government in existance anywhere on earth today that faced a level of violence as great as that ongoing in Iraq today, and survived? Furthermore, I'd like an example of a democracy imposed on a country by occupiers (and please spare us Japan and Germany as examples, both had democratic tradtions before being take over by fascist governments.)

The fact is that American's distrust the media as much as they loath politicians in general (although not their own Congressman or woman, paradoxically). By contrast, most American's trust and admire the military more than almost any other institution. This is the hill-climb David doesn't mention. Can Sheehan give the antiwar Left a lift up in meaningful popularity during the dog days of August? Very doubtfully.

The assumption in this statement being that America's love for the military will in some way prevent the American people from turning viciously on the political nitwits who put them in harms way for no good reason, or rather, for a series of vapid reasons (war on terror, WMD, Saddam was a bad man, reshaping of the region, etc.) American's might distrust the media, but as you succintly put it, they mistrust politicians all the more. With each new bombing, the idiotic rationales for war, offered up by both Democrats and Republicans looks more empty with each passing day. We are not made safer from terrorists by fighting in Iraq. The people we are fighting in Iraq have not, so far, been the people blowing up office towers and subway stations and double-decker buses, but in the future, they might be. This is already starting to occur, even to Republican-aligned voters, who are beginning to audibly question the wisdom of our adventure, a fact in evidence by the increasing number of Republican lawmakers that are publically voicing their skepticism about Bush's program. Our self-interested electorate, with their mind firmly rooted in $3/gal. gasoline and the prospect of stagnant economic growth, more runaway debt, and high interest rates in the future might just get it in their head to punish the incompetents in the ruling party, the ineptitude of the opposing party notwithstanding.

[Dan Kervick]

..."But I am impressed that the mainstream media has re-taken control of the politicial debate after failing to for several years. Observe Dan's unvarnished and unmeasured negativism above: "My estimate is that the trouble we have started in Iraq is going to spread now. . . and that whole damn region will likely soon be embroiled in a major regional war.""...

We'll have to let history judge as to which of us has a more realistic assessment of the situation, Orson. But I can assure you that my own judgment is based on more than the casual reading of a few newspaper headlines, and really has little to do with the daily ebb and flow of violence in Iraq. It is based on my understanding of the strategic rivalries that have been liberated and provoked by the political destabilization and fragmentation of Iraq, and the radicalizing of these rivalries that is a likely consequence of the upsurge in jihadist enthusiasm and activism the war has stimulated.

I do follow the political developments in the country, including the continuing struggle over the Iraqi constitution. My sense is that however those negotiations turn out, the movements in the direction of Kurdish, and now Shiite, autonomy are well underway, and are likely unstoppable apart from any additional propulsion these movement might get from Kurdish and Shiite frustration with the insurgency. I believe the country is very unlikely to hold together because there is simply not sufficient underlying political will, on the part of the major politcal actors, in favor of a unified Iraq. Whenever such a major breakup occurs, other nearby powers get involved, because they all have a major stake in the outcome of the strategic realignment. In this case it is Saudi-Iranian rivalry that particularly concerns me. But also I worry about the underlying political instability of Syria and Pakistan, and numerous reports of growing radicalism in Jordan.

Lastly, my concerns about a regional war go back to before the Iraq war, and are exacerbated by the fact that there are significant political forces here in the United States that actually seem to desire such an outcome, or at least do not dread it. And I worry that the response of the Bush administration to growing public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq is to accelerate the timetable for a long-sought hot showdown with Iran.

[Jay.Mac]

David- Great post. It seems to me that Democrats need to seriously consider what bringing the troops home as opposed to staying the course really means.

Robert- "a violent American occupation"- is that true? Is is American troops who are engaged in a violent occupation or is it American troops doing their level best to prevent violence from being carried out on the Iraqi people?

Orson- I agree with you on the optimism part. The Dems seem to never offer their unequivocal support to the job the troops are doing (do I need to mention Durbin?). It seems that they have lost the ability to offer constructive criticism- how amazing would it be to here a Dem Senator praise the success in Iraq so far before going on to offer his or her suggestions as to how to continue the fight?

This is a post that needed to be written and one that should be read by the leaders of the Democratic Party as a decision needs to be made- pull out now or continue to help Iraq fight against the terrorists who seek to undermine it?

For those who favour the former approach, the question has to be asked- what then?

[Greg Priddy]

"I lay the mess at the feet of that whole sainted gang of meddling ideologues and wild-eyed enthusiasts for "democracy" and "freedom" - the fanatics on both the left and the right." -- Dan Kervick

I think Dan really hits the nail on the head here. There is a convergence happening between the "muscular idealist" wing of the Democratic elite, and the neoconservatives on the Republican side. They still disagree about the role of international institutions, but the blind committment to the idea of remaking the Middle East in our own image is taken for granted -- even as the evidence accumulates in Iraq of the folly of this idea, particularly the very "illiberal" constitution they've drawn up -- which didn't surprise me at all, as I expected that the Iraqi constitution would reflect their culture and values, not ours.

The "muscular idealist" camp is trying to frame this as a responsible "centrist" vision versus the shrill pacifist left, but there are also a lot of people out there like myself, who aren't opposed to the use of force where it is absolutely necessary, but don't believe in wasting Americans' blood and treasure on misguided ideological crusades to remake the world in our own image.

There's an increasing disconnect between many of the "leading lights" in our party and the bulk of Democratic voters, who have been telling the pollsters that they don't think invading Iraq was "worth it" by a four-to-one ratio. Those of us who want to chart a more pragmatic course need to start pushing back.

I've recently started my own blog to share my views on this debate: RealistDem

[doc]

...clinton is right: regardless of how we initially felt (or still feel, for that matter) about the US invading and occupying iraq, we’re there and we can't leave until we help restore a semblance of order. however, we certainly don’t want to waste more lives on someone’s pipe dream, so we have to set a time frame for our withdrawal. for the sake of discussion, let’s say 2 years.

(non-military people: no nonsense here about letting our ‘enemies’ gear up for our departure: our ‘enemies’ will know - w/o us telling them - months in advance of our retreat, announced or not)

the dems tell young george: ‘it appears you deliberately mislead this congress into backing your invasion of a sovereign nation – something we’ve not forgotten. since then you have wasted thousands of american lives and countless iraqi lives and you have achieved…what? the beginnings of a government that would fall apart the day US troops left? No, this is not acceptable. starting today you’ve got 2 years to assist iraq in becoming a stable, working state, and then you’re out of there, no ifs, ands or buts. we need a cogent plan from you for this proposed work within month. we will hold you to all the specifics of the plan, NOT allowing scope creep. if your plan is successfully executed early, then the US withdrawal will begin immediately. should your plan fail, the US withdrawal will begin immediately. if we don’t get a cogent plan from you, we will have to assume that you don’t have one and we will not authorize another cent for the iraqi occupation. more, we will go to our constituency - every damned day - and tell them why we have cut you off and that we are demanding that you bring our men and women home immediately.’

this will work. in fact, it’s even money that something like this is what will eventually happen. however, if all the dems stick together they can save countless lives by making it earlier rather than later.

[Grant]

It seems to me that Democrats need to seriously consider what bringing the troops home as opposed to staying the course really means.

Quite right. The reverse is equally true. What does staying the course really mean?

[William Murray]

You cannot shove Democracy down someones throat. Tradition, culture and in Iraq's case, religion are far more significant issues. Our occupation of their land is also of significance. Everything about our society is foreign to their way of thinking. The only possible outcome of this tragedy is for Iraq to become an Islamic theocracy hopefully not as extreme as Iran's fundamentalism. The constituion will not be stuctured because of the internal conflict and their inability to reach compromise. Cultural and tribal differences will prevent it from occurring.

[Dan Kervick]

..."The only possible outcome of this tragedy is for Iraq to become an Islamic theocracy hopefully not as extreme as Iran's fundamentalism"...

Iran is actually the most democratic Muslim state in the region - by far; an Iranian-style outcome for all of Iraq wouldn't be half bad. It wouldn't be great, but Iraq could do a lot worse.

But I don't think that's where we're headed in the long term. My prediction: we eventually get a reasonably democratic Kurdish autonomous region or state in the North, though one with a very strong military role in government, something like modern Turkey; a quasi-Iranian Shiite state in the South with an elected assembly under a guardianship; and a very authoritarian central Iraqi Sunni state, with little democracy beyond the consultative traditions found in much of the Sunni world. The latter will perhaps start off with a leadership council of some kind, but ultimately evolve into something more dynastic.

I imagine the Sunni state will have a somewhat more theocratic character than the Baathist state run by Saddam. For most of his reign, Saddam was able to use the political power of the Shiites and Kurds as a counterweight against Sunni clerics and traditionalist sheikhs, in a balancing act that kept the secular Baath in firm control. But following the Gulf war, the Kurdish and Shiite separatism it provoked, and Saddam's loss of control over the north and south, he was forced to lean increasingly on conservative Sunni religious leaders and notables, and Iraq had already begun to move in the direction of an Islamic Republic. The new central Iraqi state will likely be the culmination of that process. The muscle of the former Baathists, now somewhat more Islamized themselves, will join with the conservative Sunni religious authorities to assert some control over the region, bring the jihadist firebrands to heel, and restore some sort of order - oppressive though it might be.

Perhaps we will get some sort of minimal collective security arrangement among the three formerly Iraqi polities - coordination among the forces charged with guarding the oil fields and pipelines and keeping the waterways open. But not much.

That's the future I see. And its really just the natural evolution of the process of fragmentation that has been going on in Iraq for a couple of decades now - a process that was pushed along by no-fly zones, sanctions that debilitated the central government economically and militarily, and then the final military push that smashed what was left of the British political creation called "Iraq". All that is going on now is wrangling over the terms of cohabitation that will hold as the final divorce decrees are prepared. Yet even those temporary terms can't be agreed upon. Everyone is eyeing the door, and thinking about how to get to the head of the line out.

In hindsight, it seems somewhat ridiculous that anyone could have hoped that the injection of military pressure into a state already under extreme strain from the centrifugal forces operating inside it could have resulted in anything other than fragmentation. Imagine a man spinning around in circles with a brick in each hands and one tucked under his chin. The US and its allies have gone in and boxed the man painfully on the ears. But yet they are surprised that when the man lets go the bricks fly off in separate directions, rather than falling into a tidy ediface at his feet.

The three-state outcome is really not in itself so dreadful. It's no worse than one we already have in the Middle east, and perhaps in some respects a little better. Of course it is not the dreamed-of United Democratic Republican Commonwealth of Iraq.

But there is a lot of blood and strife to come between now and then. There is a fair intermingling of populations in Iraq, comprising some remaining connective tissues that may be very painfully severed. If we begin to accept the inevitable, and focus our efforts on minimizing the trauma of the separation, rather than attempting to prevent it, we can do something constructive.

Still, the stabilization into separate states is likely only to be transitory, a pause before the broader regional power struggles to come.

[Orson]

I forgot another couple of observations that counts against David's analysis, and I reply to my critics below. The Bushies song-and-dance about withdrawl from Iraq in July struck me as more aimed at influencing an either deadlocked or dithering Iraqi constitutional convention foward than for domestic consumption. If so, reading much into it is mistaken.

Secondly, I see the case of Sheehan's August celebrity as a media template return to form after the London terrorist bombings disrupted their anti-Bush meme. Certainly, the complimentary pilloring Bush for his time away from the White House has been a WashPost and NYTimes August favorite for years - and Moore's Farenheit 9/11? natch! Why should time wasting away in Crawford be any different this time?

So feting Sheehan without any critical accumen (the woman has already met the Prez! sheesh) is a media template no-brainer! The better critical question is why hasn't the media turned John Prazynski - father of Lance Corporal Taylor Prazynsk
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/15/marine.father.ap/index.html
who died among his fellow Marines serving in Anbar Province, Iraq - into a media icon? Why the preening Sheehan and not Prazynski?

I think the question answers itself: just as the AP is finally feeling heat for its bad Iraq coverage, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/business/media/
15apee.htmlei=5090&en=4a4f32424faa6ab5&ex=
1281758400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
we get David's "analysis" that grants far too much credit to the woman instead of her antiwar handlers and the Copperhead media template she serves: Bush lied! Sheehan cried! Bush bad - ditch Iraq.

Mind you, I'm a principled isolationist (who opposed the Gulf War) who became a reluctant supporter of Bush's Iraq War (anyone with a better answer to the "one million dead" caused by the anti-Saddam trade embargo that UBL lorded against us in his 1998 fatwa, declaring Holy War against the US, please step forward). As a reluctant war supporter (who nonetheless voted for a candidate who, unlike Bush, would have immediately extracted the US from Iraq), I feel obligated to read every newspaper biography of every service member who dies in our country's war effort. Prazynski's story brought tears to my eyes, unlike Sheehan's Sainted mother Teresa act. There is authenticiy and there is cynical agit-prop theater. And I'm not indifferent to the difference, but I expect the media to be.

Robert calls my mention of successful functioning governments with resistance movements as "bordering on the absurd." OK - I'll bite: consider Sri Lanka. Better yet, the Philippines and India. Both have had such violent armed movements for decades, including Islamist ones like Iraq's, yet both have survived many many years. How are these facts "absurd?" One source I consulted listed over 330 active anti-government movements. I never said that Americans weren't a provincial lot, and thus I cited the US to illustrate its ubiquity.

The Morco Islamic Liberation Front forces in the Philippines claim to have killed 120,000 people over serveral decades. If so, that's pretty close to the dimminishing kill-rate by insugents in Iraq this year. http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_phil.htm
Furthermore, the "rebels" Iraq faces have no political program other than gaining power over others. If you believe this adds to instead of subtracting to their appeal, you're not thinking.

Robert continues: "I'd like an example of a democracy imposed on a country by occupiers" that's not Germany or Japan. But this misses two salient issues. First, democracy is a very popular idea in the Arabic Middle East, according to Pew polls. The reason? People know the West is wealthy and successful and having the institutionalized capacity to "'trow da bums out" is suspected to have something to do with it by these peoples, long long suffering from corrupt governments. The second point is that Islam is uniquely insulated against democracy. According to Ruel Marc Gerecht last January, the Shi'ite Imams know that democracy is heretical and extra-Korani. Why? Because unlike the Bible with a limited place for divine revelation, the entire Koran is believed to be the unchangable true Word of God. Islam, especially Wahabbist and Islamist creeds, are nothing if not stridently iconophobic. If one dares challenge God's Word, you make oneself into an idol - and democracy, empowering the vile individual, consitutes the sin of idolatry, just as Islamist fighters charge. (See Gerecht's talk from C-SPAN can be downloaded for free from their web site - just go and search. Likewise, his brief book "The Islamic Paradox" can also be download for free - just google it. Program: "The Islamic Paradox: Shiite Clerics, Sunni Fundamentalists, and the Coming of Arab Democracy, from January 23, 2005 - Reuel Marc Gerecht talks about his book "The Islamic Paradox" - http://www.booktv.org/search/)

Thus, Iraq has a difficult road to travel between popular goals and desires and the obstacles imposed by their own civil societies, unlike Germany and or Japan. Gerecht warned last winter of backsliding already evident when he was last in country: women aren't just segregated from Mosques, but now excluded outright. So even late last year, the die was cast. But anyone who knows Western Civ, knows how hugely, horrifyingly bloody our wars of religion were - millions died then. But the historically savvy will also recognize not a hopless case in Iraq but rather the zig-zagging the West did through the extremist lunacies of Calvinism or Lutheranism in the centuries before the Enlightenment. Progress need not be a direct path.

Faoud Ajami of Johns Hopkins, whose own Foreign Affairs piece on ME democracy appeared in the January/February 2003 issue before the war, is heartened like David's Egyptian woman in the WashPost: "George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region," a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to [Ajami]. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs. "Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006721 Similarly, Dr. Walid Phares agrees but with flag waving optimism - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18639

By contrast, a Muslim former NYTimes reporter, writing for a ME audience, reflects the religious polarization of today's political situation: "The only accomplishment of jihadis is that now they have aroused the great 'Western Tiger'." It's former welcome to Muslims may now close [after the London bombings], its "arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces" are no match for car bombs, "and it's arsenal of allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about humanity."
http://www.metimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20050726-073844-6818r Nobody promised us that marginalizing terrorists would be easy or bringing democracy lacking in novel challenges.

Robert's criticism continues: "I'd like a single example of a government in existance anywhere on earth today that faced a level of violence as great as that ongoing in Iraq today, and survived?" Our media has been piss-poor at following the strategic benchmarks of progress and pacification. It's no embarassment that Robert missed it too. But historically, no modern nation's government has lost power to rebels unable to mount a frontal assault against its forces. In Iraq, that moment has passed last year: the insurgents have lost all their direct battles, and the last one they mounted was in November in Falujia.

Since then, the January vote consolidated Iraqi's civic focus around affairs of state. Terrorists are now marginalized - popular only among unregenerate Sunnis. In February, Imams in Sunni areas could see the writing on the wall and called for political participation instead of insurrection among their followers. Since the Summer of Saddam's fall, the key issue has remained the pacification of the Sunni Triangle and "can these people be ruled by anything other than an oppressive tyrrant?" The media blood- and body-count focus diverted us from both areas of success - the peaceful north and south - and continuous challenges.

But in February, US Intel reports showed that most hostiles captured were foreign jihadis. Mostly these are Saudi Arabs - treated as suicide bomber dupes, the cannon fodder of Martyrs, or else fanatical conduits, sometimes very effective . Since spring, there have been repeated press accounts of Iraqi's uprising against these foreign Jihadis in bloody internecine warfare, killing them en mass.
http://impearls.blogspot.com/
2005_06_19_impearls_archive.html#111945985253374887
None of this fits with the dire expectations of commenters above or with the bodycount pall of our Copperhead media's headlines. http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003043.html

There are even important unreported strategic gains against Iraq's resistance and Al Qaida. Jack Kelly reports http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05212/545934.stm
as does Iranian journalist Amir Taheri http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=17748 None of this supports popular media pessimism. Yet the larger context is cause for marking real progress in the War on Terror.

Of course, real progress is uneven, and the resort to bigger bombs to instill fear and gain widespead and politcially valuable media coverage is startling and public fear depressing; Iraqi's remain unbowed. But the case for optimism by considering the strategic logic now evident is far better explained in the bloggosphere than the US media: "By engaging America in a technological arms race of sorts [terrorists] are playing to its strengths. The relative decline in IED effectivity [ie, fewer casualties per IED] suggests the enemy, while improving, has not kept up. The move to bigger bombs may temporarily restore his lost combat power {ie, more casualties], but the advent of new American countermeasures plus increasing pressure on the bombmakers, means he must improve yet again. It is far from clear whether the insurgents can stay in the battle for innovation indefinitely. The logic of asymmetric warfare suggests the enemy will at some point abandon the direct technological weapons race and find a new paradigm of attack entirely. That is essentially what they did when they abandoned the Republican Guard tank formation in favor of the roadside bomb in the first place.

"One way to achieve this (and they have been perfecting their skills by attacks against Iraqi civilians) is to switch to other targets.... Whatever that new paradigm turns out to be, it will be probably be regarded as an unanswerable weapon, like the biplane bombers of the 1930s." And the media hysteria will be wrong again.
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/08/unstoppable-ied.html

Robert continues, again responding to my remarks: "With each new bombing, the idiotic rationales for war, offered up by both Democrats and Republicans looks more empty with each passing day. We are not made safer from terrorists by fighting in Iraq.* The people we are fighting in Iraq have not, so far, been the people blowing up office towers and subway stations and double-decker buses, but in the future, they might be."

The last point is admitted by Walid Phares and others: these are only first generation Jihadis, the rightous and fervent and stupid, either inspired by al Qaida or trained by Afghan veterans. So, what about the future? Islam's implacable resistance to change and accomodation will continues, while most of the world admires capitalism and democracy (yes-polls say this) - indeed, more than we in the US or EU do! Islamists see "moderate Muslims" as apostates, which is why Iraqi's have taken far far more casualties than US soldiers have. Globalization will continue to challenge the Islamist's dual desires for insularity and conquest.

Back in February, Wash Post columnist David Ignatius interviewed Lebanon's Druze Muslim leader Walid Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq," Jumblatt said. "But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt said this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. And indeed it is.

The real race is to get the world of Islam to have its civil war of religious reform internally instead of raging outwardly fruitlessley against us. Diverision has long been a favorite tool of tyrants, including Yasir Arafat And this is why success in Iraq is so profoundly important. Islam must modernize and make its peace with the world and become a safe and great religion in order for the benefits (eg, China and India) of globalization to continue elsewhere. Remember: 9/11 did not only affect a trillion dollar loss of US income. It also set back the world's striving poor, as recession set in and cost billions of poor improved comfort, life, and health. But only Muslims can modernize Islam. (Isolationism succors an illusory empowerment instead of the patience that pushing on a sting requires, like the fiisherman.)

This civil war has begun and most are delighted to have it (again, see David's post with the Egyptian - and read my links above). Civil war, as horrific as we regard it, is also an opportunity for re-self-definition and pushing on with uncertain change. Don't sell Muslim's short: most have long wanted it because they are accutely aware of their one True Religion's inferiority - it embarrasses and troubles them profoundly. Islamism, like the Protestant Reformation - both quests for religious purity - is only one answer. A popularly sovereign Iraq provides another, and a far more functional one. [In answer to the question, “What is stalling development in the Arab world?,” 81 percent chose "Governments are unwilling to implement change and reform." http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200552911951.asp]

Dan's remarks (above) appear to reflect realist and Arabist sentiments that dominate the State Department: still fighting the old Cold War's quest for stability instead of engaging in the changing world. It took the West at least 200 years to get its collective head around the paradox of political equality for amnifestly different women. Do you think that forever putting-off changing traditional society can work in a globalizing world? Please explain to me how "stability" is "realistic" now?

The quest "Bush's War" launched, according to Woodward's books, was because of the seriousness with which Al Qiada sought nuclear devices to attack us with, as the war in Afghanistan revealed. This quest is therefore a race against time: can Islamists get and deliver a nuclear 9/11 before globalization sets Muslim women free of the patriarchal boot? The Iraq war gave Islamists the problem of multiple fronts to defeat in order to advance their Medieval rule.

Now, there are other answers for a world leader to give than war and occupation. I was shocked and appalled that Kerry, despite having Graham Allison - author of "Nuclear Terrorism : The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe" - as an advisor, couldn't reach for the center, hold the Michael Moore fanatics at bay, and propose a serious alternative peaceful path to master terrorism: roundup all the nuclear material - keep all of it away from all Jihadi's. That's another viable program.

But because Democrats lamely insist on re-fighting the last lost campaign (See Sheehan-and "change is just around the corner" rhetorical pablum), we still don't have the foreign policy debate American's deserve. We are the poorer for it. But I hope to find David Adesnik among those changing this.

-------------------------------
*Independent measures from the Brookings Institution and the London based Institute for Strategic Studies annual report on world terrorism released in May suggests otherwise.

[Orson]

Dan Kervick last post is certainly a commendably plausible sketch of the long-term outcomes of Iraq's devolution.

Where do I fault him? Not considering countervailing outside dynamics: debate over democracy elsewhere in the Arab world and long-term US presence there. The latter leads to another different but internal dynamic beyond his estimate.

Perhaps the most powerful aspect of US occupation has been our citizen-soldiers organizing, leading, and modelling grassroots political participation. This movement of empowerment could well have unforseen consequences for civic activity in Iraq. If people demand that their voices be counted and respected instead of simply managed from above, the negative outcomes you project may be quite transient before more populist politics re-emerges.

These factors make Dan's projections nothing I'd take to the bank. Will the ME be overtaken by stasis again? Or will waves of experimentation follow from cycles of debate? If the genie of populism is indeed out of the proverbial bottle, I'm more cautiously optimistic for the survival of a liberal remnant. And success always inspires imitation.

[Dan Kervick]

Just one point in response to Orson's comments: I don't at all predict "stasis" for Iraq and the Middle East. In fact, I fear a not-very-distant future of tremendous turbulence in that region, where the breakup of Iraq into separate states will in itself spark a new, and very active round of rivalry, struggle, disorder and interventions. I fear this episode of world history will sweep many of the existing institutions away, and possibly escape the international barriers that we will attempt to erect in order to contain it in one region.

I know this prospect actually makes some people giddy with excitement. Not me. Will what comes after be better or worse than what exists now. Who can say? But I do think we can say that the process of getting there is going to make a lot of people's lives very crappy - especially the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who will prematurely lose their lives altogether.

I use the term "stability" as a relative term. It doesn't mean the same thing as stasis or changlessness. For example, the United States has been a very stable country - as countries go - since the end of the Civil War. But it has undergone tremendous change. My concern is that as change occurs, the agonies of personal loss, the destruction of things of value and the disruption of lives, families and communities can be kept to a minimum. Change can occur as an organic, evolutionary process in which new forms grow inside the body of old, and the old wither away. It needn't be a process in which one catastrophic development succeeds another. Some people, of course, are excited by catastrophes. A tornado is certainly more exciting than weeks upon end of calm weather. But a rational person knows the calm weather is better for people than the tornado.

The Middle East is bound to change in response to global developments - as are we, as is everyone. The change will occur in creative ways that we cannot even predict. What we can try to do as that change occurs is what rational people always try to do: modulate it, and temper the extreme, violent forces of revolutionary aggression and bitter reaction.

The quest for stability is not just an artifact of Cold War thinking. It is an ancient theme, and goal of wise statesmen throughout history - whether in ancient Greece or ancient China or ancient Peru. It seems to be especially prominent in contemporary European thought, and unsurprisingly so, since after a few centuries of wars of religion, wars of succession, murderous revolutions, Napoleonic wars, colonial wars, those carnivals of butchery and incineration that comprised the first and second World Wars, and a few assorted massacres and holocausts along the way, they have grown somewhat less enchanted with creative destruction than they once were.

I find it a particularly dangerous notion that, because the Cold war is over, we can all relax now and take a more laissez faire attitude toward violent change. No one wants the Middle East to stay exactly the way it is. But that is no excuse for setting fire to the place.

[Robert Drake]

Robert calls my mention of successful functioning governments with resistance movements as "bordering on the absurd." OK - I'll bite: consider Sri Lanka. Better yet, the Philippines and India. Both have had such violent armed movements for decades, including Islamist ones like Iraq's, yet both have survived many many years. How are these facts "absurd?" One source I consulted listed over 330 active anti-government movements. I never said that Americans weren't a provincial lot, and thus I cited the US to illustrate its ubiquity.

No, actually I called your mention of Los Macheteros and the Aryan Nations absurd. It was a ridiculous attempt by you to somehow trivialize a major insurrection in Iraq capable of killing tens of thousands of people, and bringing the civil structure of most of the country to its knees, by comparing it to obscure resistance movements. Los Macheteros has committed a single act of violence within the continental United States, a bank robbery. You'll pardon me if I cannot see the numerous parallels between it and the Baathist resistance fighters, and fanatical jihadists in Iraq. But I don't think you intended for those examples to be taken seriously.
Conflating a "resistance" movement, with a bona fide military insurrection is dishonest.

Comparing Sri Lanka, or Kashmir, or the Phillipines to Iraq is only marginally better. The Tamil Tigers have maintained a ceasefire with the Sri Lankan government since 2001. The Tamil rebels are not engaged in a struggle to expel an occupying army, or to replace an existing government. They simply seek a small autonomous region within a one-state solution. The Islamic resistance in Kashmir and the Phillipines is completely devoid of any similarity to the Iraqi resistance. Their campaigns occur primarily in highly isolated regions. The Moro resistance in the P.I. is contained mainly to a few southern Phillipine islands, and the Kashmiri rebels are contained in a remote mountain region far removed from the vast Hindu population of India. Pakistan controls a third of Kashmir, and uses the insurgents there as a proxy army against the Indians. You can count the number of attacks carried out by the Islamic terror groups in Kashmir and the Phillipines against targets in New Delhi and Manila, on one hand. Sri Lanka, Kashmir and the Phillipine problem are examples of civil war. The more appropriate template for Iraq is Lebanon, the Occupied Territories, Algeria, Afghanistan, or the earlier British adventure in Iraq itself. The Baathist insurgents, and the jihandist fanatics are fighting a two-tiered war against an army of occupation, and a government they perceive to be a quisling affair. Iraq is a country where the only relatively safe areas are void of population. The most dangerous areas in Iraq are the most important regions of Iraq, economically, administratively, and culturally.

Robert's criticism continues: "I'd like a single example of a government in existance anywhere on earth today that faced a level of violence as great as that ongoing in Iraq today, and survived?" Our media has been piss-poor at following the strategic benchmarks of progress and pacification. It's no embarassment that Robert missed it too. But historically, no modern nation's government has lost power to rebels unable to mount a frontal assault against its forces. In Iraq, that moment has passed last year: the insurgents have lost all their direct battles, and the last one they mounted was in November in Falujia.

This is an interesting reading of history. The VC lost every tactical confrontation in Vietnam, and won the war. Hezbollah didn't stand toe to toe with Merkava tanks in an open battle with the IDF yet they eventually expelled the Israelis. You'll have to remind me which battle the mujahadeen actually won against Soviet armor, or spetsnaz. Not only is your contention not supported by any historical fact I'm aware of, it's contrary to military logic. An insurrection by its nature avoids direct conflict with a superior standing army, that's why they're engaged in guerilla warfare, and not a tank battle.

There are even important unreported strategic gains against Iraq's resistance and Al Qaida. Jack Kelly reports http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05212/545934.stm
as does Iranian journalist Amir Taheri http://www.benadorassociates.com/pf.php?id=17748 None of this supports popular media pessimism. Yet the larger context is cause for marking real progress in the War on Terror.

And you cite as your source Benadora Associates? You either have no idea who they are, or simply elided there background because you did. Benadora first of all is a public relations firm with no expertise in Middle Eastern affairs absent their neoconservative clientele, they count among their associates and clients: Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Richard Pipes, James Woolsey, Charles Krauthammer, and Max Boot. A who's who of neconservativism, the very people who made the specious arguments for getting involved in Iraq to begin with. If an organization these men are associated with is reporting good news in Iraq, you can file it away with their latest sighting of bigfoot. None of these people are even experts in Middle Eastern affairs unless being a paid propagandist for AIPAC counts. It's hardly relevant what they report.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front forces in the Philippines claim to have killed 120,000 people over serveral decades. If so, that's pretty close to the dimminishing kill-rate by insugents in Iraq this year.

THe MILF has only been in existance since 1977. Don't confuse the Moro resistance, which has fought long conflicts against both American and Japanese invaders with the recently formed Islamic terror groups.

[John Penta]

David: That is really what's at stake in the debate about Cindy Sheehan. The Democrats have to decide whether they are willing to gamble their political future on the United States losing another war in the manner that it lost Vietnam.

Please, please, please...Tell me that does not say what I think it says. You are saying the Democrats must (to use a bad metaphor) throw the game in order to win an election anytime soon?

If so, that is actually creepy.

[evets]

'That is really what's at stake in the debate about Cindy Sheehan. The Democrats have to decide whether they are willing to gamble their political future on the United States losing another war in the manner that it lost Vietnam.'

Let's not kid ourselves, the Bush administration's decision to fight this war was in no small part political; to put it crudely, they sought to burnish Bush's reputation and provide a backdrop for blood-stirring photo-ops, all for domestic political gain. I'm not claiming that the only motive was political; there were other motives (some noble) which remained unrevealed till the politically palatable ones had all dried up. The congressional Dems have by and large swallowed hard and done the right thing, giving support where it was due and generally refraining from taking the kind of knee-jerk cheap shots that the Republicans took when Clinton intervened in the Balkans.

If Dems now have deep qualms now about the correctness of our course or about the Bush teams's competence in making it work, who can blame them. And why should these qualms be sneered at as ‘political’? Sheehan has caught the imagination because she has spotlighted what's morally and intellectually corrupt in Bush, the character flaws which in hindsight made a rigorous, successful prosecution of the war unlikely from the outset. As a supporter of the war from its outset (for the noble reasons referred to above, which every day seem more naïve) I'd like to stand with her if only to point the finger at the man who's so badly botched this, who's caused so much unnecessary suffering, seemingly without a qualm.

I'm really struck in David's biographic blurb that he can express "shame" at a fairly innocuous Kerry statement about firehouses in Baghdad and Ohio, yet let Bush off so ridiculously lightly with a performance appraisal of 'lackluster at best'. What precisely does Bush and his team have to do to get a grade below lackluster? And now that things in Iraq have gotten so 'lackluster', wouldn't it be nice to have in office someone who's served in battle and could look Sheehan in the face, without flinching and with unfeigned empathy. All the 'laptop bombardiers' scoffed at the notion that Kerry's prior service could make a difference in providing moral leadership. In this as in so many other things, they were wrong.

[tristero]

Stay or go? It sounds like a reasonable question, and everyone is asking it these days. But it's not. It is a false choice.

As long as George W. Bush is the president, neither choice will lead to any good. He and his administration has demonstrated, time and again, that they are profoundly incompetent. He will withdraw American troops as catastrophically as he managed post 9/11 securtity, the decision to go to war in Iraq, and the occupation.

Until Bush is retired, puttering around Crawford while some hack ghosts his memoirs, the situation in Iraq is absolutely intractable. Even then, it is unliikely that any good will come the situation Bush created, but there may be some possibility of implementing a genuinely level-headed strategy to get us out of there without leaving the place in worse shape than Sudan.

[azci tmxyu]

adqoyhng rzalmnbo pzighx azrvyfn tzub nejkcpurg hjdq

[dqxo jtifho]

vietcjsp ilqzmny xwhjtg wvhzlxs jqbf uqjzvx lyqr http://www.vuwf.liad.com

[pkjldctwv oidh]

gthyxw ckdbip icjyt npydq jrkcnp byswzq kfest shlfbv xzgp

[how to inject steroid]

Nice site. Thanks.
anabolic making steroid them
mexican steroid
how to inject steroid
steroid picture
steroid abuse

[pringle]

Very good site. Thanks!!!
laptops pentium
51 hitachi projection tv
ibm
plain roof tile
pringle
b computer fj170 laptop sony vaio
gaming laptop review
broadband internet live tv
web server cctv
quickpayroll
stuart nicholls corporate services manager kent and medway strategic health
refurbished mac laptop
mac rumors
mousepad
large format
12 mp
sinar
bh video
laptop and high speed modems
gamesurround

[sali]

In Iran, Putin Warns Against Military Action:
http://salihome.info/show/index.html

[Zorrodxl]

Hi! [url=][/url]

[Markwc]

Hi! [url=][/url]

[Zorrojdu]

provider telephony voip [url=http://voip-provider-08webs.12w.net]provider telephony voip[/url] business voip [url=http://business-voip-08webs.12w.net]business voip[/url]

[Angeldn]

business provider service voip [url=http://usastore.freepimphost.com/voip-provider]business provider service voip[/url] business service voip [url=http://usastore.freepimphost.com/business-voip]business service voip[/url]

[Realoy]

philippine provider voip [url=http://bestwebs.hostclix.com/voip-provider]philippine provider voip[/url] business case voip [url=http://bestwebs.hostclix.com/business-voip]business case voip[/url]

[Doodee]

Thanks for sharing

[charmingirl]

Lingerie Wholesale
Sexy Lingerie Wholesale
Leather/PVC Lingerie
Christmas Costume

[aion gold]

There is a lot of aion online gold in the game,if you want to have them you can come to play the game. Ilike to earn the aion money,because if i have them i can go to buy equipment and i also can go to buy aion gold. if you want to play it, please cheap aion gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to play the game,i believe you will like it too.

[dofus kamas]

I hope i can get kamas in low price.
Ibuy dofus kamas for you.
dofus gold is present for you.
Do you like cheap kamas?

[hero online gold]

If you have hero gold, you can get more. If you gave hero online gold to me, I still have my idea to achieve.

[Sword of the New World money]

I hope i can get Sword of the New World Vis in low price,
Yesterday i bought Sword of the New World Gold for my friend.

[runescape golda]

I like the runescape golda, my brother usually
buy runescape for me. I appriciate him.

[2moons gold]

Once I played 2moons, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have 2moons dil. He gave me some 2moons gold.

[Replica Gucci handbags]

These factors make Dan's projections nothing I'd take to the bank

[plastic injection molding]

thanks for your article!
Shoring scaffolding for construction is a very useful tool.
Books printed by China printing is very good quality and good prices.
Plastic products made by injection molding services with low costs and supeior quality.

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[ghghg]

CHEAP rs gold
MY lotro gold
CHEAPEST aion gold

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[michael jordan shoes]

Cheap Jordan shoes and Gucci shoes are on sale

[Ugg London]

This is very useful article, I like it, thank you!
Uggs london
Never frown, when you are sad, because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[nike air max]

0314
The Nike air max Shoe lives up to its name with plush cushioning and a sleek silhouette. It brings you just what you need to style it up wherever you go. you can look at the Air max 2009,air max 90,Air max 95,Air Max 2010
Features:
* Minimalistic construction of leathers and synthetics in the upper
* Nike Shox technology for optimal cushioning
* Rubber outsole for excellent grip

[bvlgari watches]

The FRANCK MULLER Watch Santa FRANCK MULLER Watch Monica-based

[some watches]

Good recommended website.

[gucci watches]

That's awesome! I can't wait to get into it.

[China Tent]

Amazing stuff,Thanks so much for this!This is very useful post for me. This will absolutely going to help me in my projects .

[chat]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...

[porno]

thanksa lan yarram

[pandora jewellry]

I never comment on blogs, but this one is awesome! Thanks.

[China Inflatable]

I love it,Excellent article.I am decide to put this into use one of these days.Thank you for sharing this.To Your Success!

[China Inflatable]

I love it,Excellent article.I am decide to put this into use one of these days.Thank you for sharing this.To Your Success!

[China Inflatable]

Your idea coincides with mine.and I think it's better.

[xixihaha]

It is time to buy a homecoming dress for youself.Do you want to be the homecoming queen?If your answer is 'YES'.You'd better search for your homecoming dress as soon as possible.Bright colors are so in this year.Remember, this isn't a prom or graduation ceremony. Homecoming is about fun! Dresses can still look formal, but this year you should be jazzing up your look with bright or even neon colors. Hot pink, electric blue; show your wild side and don't forget to color-match your makeup and accessories.Short skirts are a must. . If you're going to be dancing away the night then you don't want a long skirt tripping you up at every turn! Homecoming is a great chance to be a bit less formal, so ditch the long gown and go short!A-Line or ball gown style is ideal. Every year girls are wondering what the best style is for some serious partying at homecoming! Well in 2011 we're saying that you need to choose A-Line or ball gown style gowns as these are going to be really comfortable for dancing as well as being flattering for almost ANY body shape!Choose iridescent taffeta. 2011 is the year of iridescent taffeta. Here comes the best part though, following 2011's trends and still getting the dresses cheaply!

And now let me tell you where can buy these dressses:

Dress store/This is one site which belong to our company..we are provide a lot of new style homecoming dresses. And we will update the products every month.

Gsdresses/It is belong to our company,too.we will update the products every month and send you conpon non-periodical.

Mldress/We not only provide customize homcoming dresses but also send the new product list to you. If you are lucky,you may get the conpon non-periodical.

Don't be shillyshally,To get your new homecoming dresses as soon as possible.
It is time to buy a homecoming dress for youself.Do you want to be the homecoming queen?If your answer is 'YES'.You'd better search for your homecoming dress as soon as possible.Bright colors are so in this year.Remember, this isn't a prom or graduation ceremony. Homecoming is about fun! Dresses can still look formal, but this year you should be jazzing up your look with bright or even neon colors. Hot pink, electric blue; show your wild side and don't forget to color-match your makeup and accessories.Short skirts are a must. . If you're going to be dancing away the night then you don't want a long skirt tripping you up at every turn! Homecoming is a great chance to be a bit less formal, so ditch the long gown and go short!A-Line or ball gown style is ideal. Every year girls are wondering what the best style is for some serious partying at homecoming! Well in 2011 we're saying that you need to choose A-Line or ball gown style gowns as these are going to be really comfortable for dancing as well as being flattering for almost ANY body shape!Choose iridescent taffeta. 2011 is the year of iridescent taffeta. Here comes the best part though, following 2011's trends and still getting the dresses cheaply!

And now let me tell you where can buy these dressses:

Dress store/This is one site which belong to our company..we are provide a lot of new style homecoming dresses. And we will update the products every month.

Gsdresses/It is belong to our company,too.we will update the products every month and send you conpon non-periodical.

Mldress/We not only provide customize homcoming dresses but also send the new product list to you. If you are lucky,you may get the conpon non-periodical.

Don't be shillyshally,To get your new homecoming dresses as soon as possible.