David Letterman gets Iraq Wrong Posted by Shadi Hamid

You got to respect David Letterman taking it to Bill O’Reilly on Friday night. The tense exchange was certainly fun to watch. But something that Letterman said - or didn’t say - made me feel really, really uncomfortable.

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody. Moreover, if I was living in some Red State watching Letterman doing his best John Kerry impression, I would probably freak out and pull the lever for the Big Red (elephant).

Yes, I dislike O’Reilly just as much as the next liberal, but let’s not lose sense of what’s at stake here. The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people who deserve and demand more than the spectacle of disaffected liberals using Iraq as an excuse for reactionary Buchanesque forays into foreign policy.

Comments

[J Thomas]

We did win in iraq. It was a quick and glorious victory. The iraq army melted away and Saddam ran for it. As near as I can recall it was the most one-sided victory since the chinese invaded tibet. (Although the iraqi invasion of kuwait might come close in third place. And the most recent US invasion of panama would be in the running.)

Our current failure is our attempt to install a nonrepresentative puppet government in iraq. The elected iraq assembly doesn't have much control over government ministries (we mostly control them) and the recent partition question shows that it doesn't even count votes accurately. Why would any iraqi fight hard for it? Why would we hope to "win" that?

We won the war in iraq 3 years ago. We won every goal that we said we wanted and that we actually attempted. The only one we've failed at is democracy for iraq, and that's one we haven't attempted.

[North]

I think Letterman was probably worried that Mr. "No-spin" was setting a trap for him, probably along the lines of:

"Do you want the US to win in Iraq?"
"Well, of course, but-"
"Then you have to agree with (blah-blah-blah)
"But that doesn't make any sense-"
"I thought you wanted the US to win, Dave?"

[David Tomlin]

I don't know what it would mean for the U.S. to 'win' in Iraq, but I don't believe there is anything to win there that would be worth the cost.

[Reynolds]

you must read the above url

also, I wish more on the left actually believed this statement...

The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people who deserve and demand more than the spectacle of disaffected liberals using Iraq as an excuse for reactionary Buchanesque forays into foreign policy.

...because so far the war has been the best rallying cry for the dems in a decade. Some of our colleagues in Washington who shall remain nameless will admit, after a few Chimays at St. Ex, that they have and always have hoped that the war in Iraq fails and that we fail.

[Greg Sanders]

I think the trick is to respond yes but with an immediate follow-up.

"Yes, I'd like to win. Would you like for X?"

Substitute X for an issue of choice.
"To win in Afghanistan?" (yes)
"To keep losing scores of American soldiers each month?" (no)
"To reduce terrorist recruitment?" (yes)
"To make common cause with Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda?" (yes)
"To make America safer?" (yes)

That sort of thing. Obviously the proper question depends on your analysis. This gets to North's point. The question is a trap. But it can be countered.

[Shadi Hamid]

Reynolds,

You say: "Some of our colleagues in Washington who shall remain nameless will admit, after a few Chimays at St. Ex, that they have and always have hoped that the war in Iraq fails and that w"e fail."

When you push them on this, how do they justify such sentiments which clearly go against everything liberals have ever stood for since FDR? It's dissapointing. It really is.

[Robert Jones]

It is hard to be victorious when we do not know what victory is. To me, when we went into this war, the goal was simple. Remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of any Weapons of mass destruction that they may or may not have. We have done that, and it seems that our goal now (to establish a benevolent Western Democracy, is somewhat like the goal of having all the Iraq Children hold hands and sing in brotherly love. Given the amount of anger towards us in Iraq, even if that goal is possible, it is probably even less likely to happen if while we are there.

Bush has promised that we will be there until at least January 2009 when he leaves office. At that point we will have lost at least 5,000 men and women in Iraq. Nearly twice as of what was lost in the World Trade Center.

Lao Tzu (an ancient Chinese philosopher) once said:
A Great Nation is like a great man.
When he makes a mistake he realizes it.
Having realized it he admits it.
Having admitted it he corrects it.
He considers those that point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers.
He considers his enemy the shadow he himself casts.

Are we simply there because we can not admit that we made a mistake?

[alkali]

I agree with North. O'Reilly's question is just a rhetorical gambit, not a meaningful question

I might as well ask you, "Do you want me to achieve my dream of playing center for the Celtics?"

Given that I am 35, 6'3", overweight, and never played ball in high school or college, what could a "yes" answer to that question possibly mean, other than "I agree that you should engage in some plainly futile and more-or-less self-destructive course of conduct with that ostensible goal in mind"?

That said, Shadi is right that the parry to that gambit must start with the word "Yes."

[rdf]

The real point O'Reilly was trying to get across was missed by Letterman and most people who have commented on the interchange.

O'Reilly continually repeated that our going into Iraq was the result of honest mistakes in that Bush didn't have accurate intelligence information on WMD's. This is, of course, a complete falsehood as has been demonstrated by at least a dozen books by insiders by now.

Cheney and Rumsfeld lied about WMD's. They lied about the reasons for invading and they are still lying. The O'Reilly's of the world are laying the foundation for the big lie of history that the motives were noble, it was just bad implementation; and this was because of weak-kneed "Liberals".

It may have been brave of Letterman to face O'Reilly, a professional spinmeister, but it wasn't a real contest. That's why O'Reilly and the rest of them never face anyone informed and well spoken.

[J]

Let me comment on alkali's point that (1) North was right that the question was a trap, but (2) I don't agree that the answer had to start with the word "Yes." It is said that the Japanese have a way of being able to say "no" without saying the word. Similarly, David was right to say (more or less) "that depends by what YOU mean by 'win', and if by 'win' you mean stay there for another decade, losing 100 soldiers a month while the Iraqi government flails around uselessly, the answer is I want to change the game to something I CAN win." He didn't have time to say all that, but he was right to lambast that horse's ass O'Reilly.

[j.s.]

I completely agree- I cringed at the interview and I detest O'Reilly.

J.S.

[Cal]

Anyone who cringed at this interview and wants to criticize the "hard left," has to explain what winning means. Tell us which of the various death squads running Iraq you think we should champion.

Both Badr and Mehdi are running around the country pushing holes into Sunnis with electric drills.

If anyone has been simple minded the past 5 years it's been the liberal hawks. Before the war we were told that Saddam was a very bad man -- which is obviously true -- and anyone who didn't want to remove him by military force was an appeaser (which was not true). Then the hawks told us that we broke Iraq so we own it and have to stay. Then when Murtha spoke up for the generals and said this isn't working, Suzanne and other Dems said no not yet.

So please stop telling us to "just win baby!" This isn't a Raider game. Nothing could be more simple minded than that.

[Dan Kervick]

Whatever "winning in Iraq" could possibly amount to at this point, I assume it would require a prolonged and redoubled US military commitment.

There are now very many Americans who support getting our people out of Iraq. Some support doing this in short order; some support doing it on some sort of timetable spanning a fairly brief time frame; some support a massive Murtha-style drawdown and redeployment.

The people who support one of these options are by no means all on the "hard left". Increasing numbers of independents and Republicans support this course of action, along with most Democrats.

I think it is fairly clear to most of these people what a US drawdown or departure means. It means the US will cease its increasingly costly and futile efforts to efforts to achieve total victory in Iraq, and will leave having produced something well short of the achievement of all of the US's initial war aims. Thus I think it is clear to most of these people that the departure the change in policy they seek is causally incompatible with the US winning in Iraq.

So, since this rather large group of Americans from across the political spectrum favors a change of current US policy in favor of a new policy which forecloses the possibility of victory in Iraq, one must conclude that the do not want to "win in Iraq."

Some opposed the military operation from the beginning. And since achieving victory in Iraq clearly requires mounting a military operation in Iraq to begin with, we can say that these people never supported winning in Iraq. Other once did support winning in Oraq, but no longer support winning in Iraq.

Of course, it must be pointed out immediately that most of the Americans who favor this kind of change in policy believe either that (a) victory in Iraq, as defined by Bush, Shadi and O'Reilly, was never achievable, or (b) it was once achievable but is no longer achievable or (c)it can only be achieved at a cost that is so high as to make the victory a Pyrrhic one, so that the benefits of victory do not justify the costs.

Perhaps Shadi's point is only a political one. Maybe he is only saying that whenever any American is asked if they want to win in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter, they should automatically and unthinkingly answer "yes" for the sake of appearances: "Win in Iraq? Yes, absolutely! I want to win. I want to win in Iraq, win in Afghanistan, win in Saigon, win in Cuba, win in Panama City, win in Gettysburg, win at the Alamo! I want to win on the seas, win on the beaches, win in the skies! Win! Win! Win! America! America! America!"

But then, after articulating this ritual victory speech, they can forget about the speech and go on to endorse a real national policy - one that might not aim at victory after all. Maybe this kind of lizard-brained response is required for political purposes, and is what Letterman should have given.

[Shadi Hamid]

Dan and others-

Keep in mind that O'Reilly's question was "do you want the US to win in Iraq?" and not "do you think the US CAN win in Iraq?" There is a big difference and, presumably, one can answer "yes" to the first and "no" to the second. Summary: when O'Reilly asks a question like that you say: "you're damn right I want to win, but the Bush administration made such a victory impossible, because of its botched policies and ideological blindness. As a result, we lost a momentous opportunity to establish Iraqi democracy and I worry it may be too late. And this is a tragedy for Iraqis and for the millions of Arabs and Muslims next door who would have drawn inspiration from a free, democratic, emerging Iraq."

[Dan Kervick]

Shadi,

I suppose you will think I am getting hung up on a logical point, but I don't think it makes much sense for a person to describe a policy preference in favor of ending the US war in Iraq, with several of its war aims still unmet, as a case of "wanting to win in Iraq". To continue to want something after you have concluded it is no longer achievable is to be in an irrational mental state. Once you have decided an outcome is not achievable, and have made a clear-minded decision to discontinue your efforts to achieve it, then you have ceased to want that outcome. The best that could be said at that time is that you wish the outcome could have have been achieved. You no longer want the outcome to be achieved.

That's why O'Reilly's question is a clever trap that a respondent must try to avoid. O'Reilly knows very well that if one wants to achieve some end X, and one belives that in order to achieve X one must do Y, then one is committed to doing Y. So, if Letterman had said that he wants to win in Iraq, O'Reilly's follow-up would have been "Well Dave, isn't it clear that in order to win in Iraq, the US must continue to fight in Iraq? After all, if you stop fighting a war, you can't win that war."

And since it is quite obvious that one can't win a war unless one continues to pursue the war to the point of victory, Letterman would then have been snared. O'Reilly could then have pointed out that Letterman just committed himself to staying in Iraq until victory is achieved. He would have said, "so if you really want to win, you must want to continue to fight on for victory."

For someone like me personally, it would be incredibly dishonest to give the answer you recommend to an O'Reilly-like question. Since I never supported the decision to pursue the military option in Iraq; and have have supported ending the war ever since it was launched, there is no way I could now adopt a position of pretending I wanted to fight and win the war all along, and that I am now all torn up about the loss of a supposedly momentous opporunity to establish democracy in Iraq by force. That might be an honest position for someone you to take, since you supported the war. But for me it would be a willful misrepresentation of my past and present positions.

[J Thomas]

“do you want the United States to win in Iraq?”

"Yes I do, now let me ask you one. Do you want every american to be a milionaire?"

[J Thomas]

The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people

If that were only true.

If only that were true.

Only if that was true, we could win.

[Reynolds]

Shadi, I agree that it's a terrible shame. The Declaration of Independence was conceived as a shot over the bow of despotism, "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator , etc." Iraqi's, like Americans and British and French were born free. It is men who lie through religion (كلا بل تكذبون بالدين و ان عليكم لحافظين كراما كاتبين يعلمون ما تفعلون)to further their political ends that oppress the Iraqi people, not American soldiers, and not American officials. Read Bob Kagan's new book Dangerous Nation, it's a fine piece even if you don't agree with his thesis.

People, many of them on the American left, do want the US to fail in establishing a stable and democratic society Iraq. If the US fails it will put to rest the idea of pre-emptive war once and for all. It will put to rest any future neo-conservative agenda of waging war to spread the American system of government. It will dash the hopes of Republican candidates for years (six to be exact, if my historical reckoning is accurate). There's a lot of stateside ego in play. Frankly, the American right does care more than the American left about seeing Iraq free and free of war. We have more riding on it. We care more about the people of Iraq than the American left which is why we want to stay until the job is done. We have more riding on this effort than the left. The American reputation for strength and being a force of stability in the world can not be made second to myopic political aspirations. The US has not failed in Iraq, yet. And that anyone would want to leave the country to the insurgency, or would long for the days of Saddam is frightening. Alas, this is what we hear daily on the news in Washington.

Here's a question. Europeans seem as disgusted with the violence in Iraq as we Americans. Why no offer to help? Why no sending thousands of troops to quell the violence? Why no mass movements to help with the rebuilding efforts? Why sit against the wall and whisper side to side, "I told you so" and then not do anything about it? Where's Russia's help? China? How about all the wealthy gulf countries? You seriously expect me to believe that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, let alone Syria and Iran don't have a vested interest in seeing a stable country in Iraq? Why no help?

Frankly, I hope Iraq turns into The Islamic Republic of Iraq and comes to live under the system we see in Iran. Iraq will become a well structured dictatorship if America leaves in the near future or if we scale down our effort. Then we can have a big sigh of relief that, phew, our boys are safe at home. Meanwhile, we'll leave another couple of million people to suffer for 30 or 40 years in a totalitarian system like the one in Iran.

The American experiment, and it is an experiment, can not and should be jailed within our shores.

[Dan Kervick]

Reynolds,

From the beginning of the war, the war's supporters on both the right and left have consistently underestimated the difficulty and feasability of the task they have set themselves; and they have consistently underestimated the harms that would have to be inflicted on the Iraqi people in order to accomplish the task. So, frankly, when some of the remaining pro-war holdouts assure us now that victory is still possible if only we have the will to achieve it, I doubt that they really know what they are talking about given how wrong they were in the past.

You are right about one thing: the war's supporters do have more riding personally on the outcome in Iraq. They have their reputations and pride invested in the Iraq project. But don't try to translate this ego-driven motivation into a greater humanitarian concern for the Iraqis themselves. The war's supporters have one conception of progress in Iraq - pressing on and killing more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a quixotic quest to achieve ideological victory - while the war's opponents have a variety of different conceptions.

There is no chance that other countries will participate in any sort of peacekeeping effort to quell the violence in Iraq so long as the United States military is engaged in war-fighting rather than peacekeeping. If you want other countries to participate, the US is going to have to declare that the war is over, that its initial aims will remain unmet, but that it is now inviting a global discussion of what to do now and how other countries might participate.

The problem is that Iraq is not now a country with a fragile but broadly supported central government. It is in a state of civil war with fighting occuring throughout the country on behalf of local leaders and parties for control of local regions. This is simply not the sort of situation into which countries can inject their peacekeeping troops with a reasonable hope of success.

[J Thomas]

Wow, Reynolds. You provide a target-rich environment. But you mostly aren't worth responding to. I'll just do one little response anyway.

People, many of them on the American left, do want the US to fail in establishing a stable and democratic society Iraq. ....

There's a lot of stateside ego in play. Frankly, the American right does care more than the American left about seeing Iraq free and free of war. ....

The American reputation for strength and being a force of stability in the world can not be made second to myopic political aspirations. ....

Frankly, I hope Iraq turns into The Islamic Republic of Iraq and comes to live under the system we see in Iran.

If only people like you would put aside your myopic political aspirations and try to do what's best for the iraqi people, we could *win* this war. But at this point it looks hopeless.

[Reynolds]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

[zumbrunndbla]

I'll admit to this: I was hoping from the start that the Irak War would fail. Why?

Let us assume we "won" it - which means nothing more than that the administration is able to convince a majority of the people of "victory".

What happens next? We find ourselves almost immediately in a bigger war, against Iran probably. We may even "win" that one too. But - under this administration - war making is not going to stop before a disaster occurs. The sooner the disaster the better.

I always "cringe" when I hear the "hard left" attacked. Please note: the political spectrum in the US goes from center right to practically fascist - the entire left, not just the "hard" part, is not in evidence.

[Reynolds]

Zumbrunndbla,

You seem to have a problem with war in general, not just the Irak war (by the way, that is a proper, although outdated, spelling of Iraq). Why don't you like war? It's arguably one of the oldest of human activities. Do you think we as human beings will ever stop fighting one another? Part of the idea of democracy promotion is that Western, particularly the US manifestation of, democracy is THE superior form of government on earth. Look at all the dictatorships of the world I'd have to agree. Why shouldn't the US use its military might to topple dictatorship? Was it wrong for the US to fight communist forces in Korea? Looking at the success of South Korea in relation to the North I'd say. Inasmuch as all wars are ideological wars in one form or another, why shouldn't the US fight and continue to fight pre-emptive against dictatorial regimes?

I don't mean any of this post as snarky. I don't believe that war is always wrong, and there's about 4000 years of written history to support the thesis that war is more human than let's say peace. Why not fight a war in Iraq, and then maybe Iran, and God-willing then against the Saudis?

[abilify]

side effects carisoprodol http://www.pianetablog.com/carisoprodolso/ mixing seroquel carisoprodol

[crestor]

suicide with soma how many http://zithrosidef.blogbeam.com/ zithromax z-pak

[xanax]

meridia cod http://s8.createphpbb.com/xanhhrt/ xanax symptoms

[ultracet]

privet subj@twoweb.ru

[Bill in Chicago]

I'm with Letterman. The problem, quite simply, is that Iraq is the wrong stinkin' country. It's like asking “do you want the United States to win in Bolivia?” A thoughtful person might very well ponder why the fuck are we in Bolivia, and what do they have to do with 9/11?

And if you want another flumoxing question, ask why Bill O'Reiley (or Pres. Bush for that matter) won't say a word about any of this:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

Like I said, it's the wrong stinkin' country.

[Rich]

What does winning mean? Making Iraq safe for Iranian hegemony?

[Turbo]

Shadi,

Do you want the US to win the 2006 World Cup?

Come on! What answer could you possibly give but “yes.”

[Michael]

The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people who deserve and demand more than the spectacle of disaffected liberals using Iraq as an excuse for reactionary Buchanesque forays into foreign policy.

You're more than welcome to go ahead and suit up and go save them from . . . well, what we started in the first place. Seriously. You want to believe we are all that stands between Iraq and . . . what? Please provide actual evidence to support your contentions.

[Michael]

Why not fight a war in Iraq, and then maybe Iran, and God-willing then against the Saudis?

With what? Your fearsome words?

[wag]

There is no "war in iraq". There is the US military occupation of Iraq. No, I don't want to "win" the occupation against the 80% of Iraqis who do not want us there.

[Chibi]

Blackwater, Halliburton and a few others are winning big time in Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise needs to get on board the Big Red White and Blue Gravy Train or move to China!

[Greg]

So, now David Letterman is setting policy for the "hard left" (whatever that is). I thought he was an entertainer. Guess he's branched out into being a strawman for deadenders who refuse to see the failure of Bush Administration policy in Iraq (in particular) and the Mideast (in general).

[scarshapedstar]

Hold on a second. David didn't answer a rhetorical question for which you feel there was only one possible answer and it consists of one syllable.

Because of this, you call him simplistic and predictable.

OK, then.

[Angryman]

No, I don't want America to "win" in Iraq. I don't give one flying fig about Iraq. I care about people I know in the military and I want them home. That's all. I want them to stop fighting this shit of a war and I want them home. The Iraqis can evaporate into a cloud of dust for all I care.

Tell Me, Shadi, why the hell I should care more about Iraqis I will never know then friends and relatives I know intimately?

[mario]

Why am I spending so much time at this site today?

Damn you Atrios!!!!!

Oh yeah.

Shadi = Asshat

Because he thinks he understands what anyone means when they say "win in Iraq". And because he doesn't understand that when people pause to answer that question, they're thinking - is this worth one more American life? They're thinking - if we leave now does that mean we lost? Lost what?

Who are these clowns here, anyway? So far they've not shown more depth than my 13 year-old. Is this someone's high-school summer project or something?

[mark]

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to find a million ponies Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

Yeah!

[mark]

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to find a million ponies Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

Yeah!

[mario]

Of course, the name says it all:

Democracy Arsenal

Take this democracy from us or we'll kill you!!

asshats

[liberal]

Shadi Hamid wrote, "...As a result, we lost a momentous opportunity to establish Iraqi democracy and I worry it may be too late. And this is a tragedy for Iraqis and for the millions of Arabs and Muslims next door who would have drawn inspiration from a free, democratic, emerging Iraq."

LOL!

The problem is that that's a counterfactual---the likelihood that a secular, liberal democracy would have been established in the wake of deposing Saddam was vanishingly small.

Not to mention the problem with the assumption that our government has shown any interest in Arab democracy, at least when the Arab voters vote the way "we" don't like them too.

What, is this a PNAC website or something?

[liberal]

Reynolds wrote, The Declaration of Independence was conceived as a shot over the bow of despotism, "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator , etc." Iraqi's, like Americans and British and French were born free.

Yes and no. We can all agree that in the sense of some abstract principles of natural law, we're all born free. But in terms of being born in a community that enjoys the fruits of liberal democracy, it's very unlikely.

For Christ's sake---think of the West. Magna Carta: 1215. Brown v. Board: 1954. That's over seven centuries.

Of course, we hope that others will be able to do some "technology transfer" and shorten the time needed, but it ain't like it's going to happen overnight.

It will put to rest any future neo-conservative agenda of waging war to spread the American system of government.

The neo-conservative agenda is to make the Middle East safe for the Israeli war crime of transporting people into occupied territories.

It will dash the hopes of Republican candidates for years (six to be exact, if my historical reckoning is accurate).

Given that the Republicans have even more lust for war than the Democrats, that's got to be counted as a good thing.

Frankly, the American right does care more than the American left about seeing Iraq free and free of war.

But if the history of occupations is any guide, it's not for we Americans to "see".

We have more riding on it. We care more about the people of Iraq than the American left which is why we want to stay until the job is done.

LOL! Sure.

The American reputation for strength and being a force of stability in the world can not be made second to myopic political aspirations.

Stability...as in, the manner in which the US under Bush completely destabilized the Middle East by overthrowing Saddam and threatening repeat performances in Syria and Iran?

The US has not failed in Iraq, yet.

LOL!

And that anyone would want to leave the country to the insurgency, or would long for the days of Saddam is frightening.

The only people longing for the days of Saddam are certain pro-war commentators and analysts who think that "Saddam-lite" still has a lot going for it. (And hey...you might actually want to check out this new technology called "The Web." It has a picture of Donald Rumsfeld greeting...Saddam, of all people.)

As for leaving the country to insurgency, it's far likelier that the Shi'ites will gain the upper hand and quell the Sunni insurgency. Lots of blood-letting, to be sure, but that genie's already out of the bottle, because you and yours advocated invasion a few years ago.

Why no offer to help? Why no sending thousands of troops to quell the violence?

Because that kind of nation building doesn't work in this context, if you actually read history.

You seriously expect me to believe that Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, let alone Syria and Iran don't have a vested interest in seeing a stable country in Iraq? Why no help?

LOL! Saudi Arabia would want Iraq, with its Shia majority, to be a stable (and hence more powerful) democracy?

I wanna smoke whatever it is you're smoking.

(And while we're on the topic of Saudi Arabia...it's odd to see it mentioned here, even if only obliquely, given that half of its population is enslaved.)

Meanwhile, we'll leave another couple of million people to suffer for 30 or 40 years in a totalitarian system like the one in Iran.

Yes, because we all know that political systems will never evolve on their own. By God, in the 1980s some people actually were stupid enough to believe that China was experimenting with capitalism! And that in the 1990s there was a short, fragile window during which the Soviet Union almost moved away from its Communistic system?

Christ, the naivite of some people.

The American experiment, and it is an experiment, can not and should be jailed within our shores.

Yeah. Screw that leftist guy who wrote, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion only of her own." Not to mention this address by a retiring, loathesome left-wing partisan who suggested that we not get entangled in overseas adventures.

[Joyful Alternative]

If we want to do what's best for the people of Iraq, we need to be setting up refugee resettlement programs. A million non-Muslim Iraqis and a million Iraqis who helped or are thought to have favored us in some way have no viable future in their country.

[brent]

What on earth are you even talking about here? Why would any thinking person even take a question like O'Reilly's seriously? "Do you want us to win in Iraq?" A relatively intelligent twelve year old would realize that this is a deliberately vague question that is meant to trap the person answering into framing the issue in the way O'Reilly wants to frame it. Honestly, this is what you consider thoughtfulness? Are you kidding? All you are doing here, Mr. Hamid, is validating the incredible intellectual dishonesty of charlatans like O'Reilly. At some point you are going to have to come to grips with that.

Look. If O'Reilly or anyone else is honestly trying to determine what a liberal would like the outcome of the Iraq war to be, they can ask it in an intellectually honest way. Something like: "Ideally, what would you like the outcome of this conflict to be with respect to the American and Iraqi interests?" Then, at least, you might get an reasonable picture of what the person honestly thinks about the national interests involved. O'Reilly's actual question is just about him forcing the framing of the issue within bounds of his impossibly childish point of view. You really ought to feel some intellectual shame behind the fact that you actually treat this amateur hour nonsense seriously.

[Blarg Fargleman]

The fundamental problem here is that Letterman is right and O'Reilly and the other knuckledraggers are depending on their ability to bully and badger people to get an answer they like right or wrong. The fundamental principles which underlie O'Reilly's position are that of lies, subterfuge, murder and falsehood. It smells like a Joseph Conrad novel in most right wingers' heads. Reynolds is clearly delusional because the arguments he/she posits are completely ahistorical and ignore recent events.
Can you rain death on the heads of innocents, shoot them without punishment in public,torture, maim, and kill people into loving you?
It is sick and this is the sickness that is American Conservatism. It is the rationalization of the wife beater, the child molester (armchair subversive dot com), the exploiter of the powerless (falafel man) and the last resort of those who need to blame victims for their lot.
Nothing is more troubling than the murderer wondering why he isn't loved. America trying to take the place of the British colonizers in the same old stomping grounds and murdering the descendents of those who survived the British Empire while ignorant cheerleaders and bimbos ponder on the internet why those darky savages are so ungrateful for our benificence makes me think America deserves what it is getting, good and hard, as Mencken observed in the past under other "Conservative" leadership.
And the mission was declared accomplished years ago, so what is to win? What does O'Reilly, Reynolds, Mark and Ruppert think lies at the end of the "I win" rainbow? A sterile land of ghosts and hints of the uncivil dead who mock the vulgarity of America's Conservatives, whose hate is so deep they desire their fellow countrymen be killed to vindicate their reactionary bloodlust, racism and hatred? I think we win when we get rid of these monstrous little men, and leave other countries the freedom to be as they choose.

[theod]

Letting propagandists like Bill O'Reilly pose the question is exactly wrong. It's the bully's approach to defining the agenda. It's dishonest and manipulative.

For example: Have you stopped beating your wife? Did your mother ever catch you masturbating in the closet? See how that works?

And what is winning anyway? The idea keeps shifting and was ill-defined from the get go.

[Exile on Ericsson St.]

This post makes me cringe. How is Letterman part of the "hard left"? How could any thinking person answer a question about "winning" in Iraq? What does "winning" in Iraq even mean? Killing enough of one ethnicity that the other surrenders?

This post is an embarrassment. I wonder if you are a neoconservative posing as a Democrat.

Or maybe you're just not a thoughtful person.

[Uncle Smokes]

The Iraq War is not about scoring points against conservatives – it’s about trying to do what's best for the Iraqi people who deserve and demand more than the spectacle of disaffected liberals using Iraq as an excuse for reactionary Buchanesque forays into foreign policy.

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're just kidding, because otherwise I'd like to hear your policy positions on unicorns and the Tooth Fairy.

Maybe you think that this is what the Iraq war is about, but history is undeniable:

Our war machine furthers U.S. interests by spreading forward bases throughout the world to encircle strategic resources and to force open markets for less-then-free trade and sucking up the capital outflow.

Manifest Hegemony, baby!

Any other reason you tell yourself is just mirror-mirror-on-the-wall narcissistic deception, useful in keeping you safely within the pale of acceptable discourse, opening the doors to longstanding institutions populated by highly indoctinated and discplined tools who have kept this monstrous machine churning for over a century.

[Wow. That bit of puffery really ticked me off. I suppose I shouldn't have bothered with anyone who tosses off a term like "Buchanesque." A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing.]

[Nix]

I have come to understand that you may very well be stupid for posting repeatedly on subject matter you have no idea what your talking about. Iraq is an illegal war always was there is no "winning" only the meat grinder for us. The longer we are there the less safe we become! Do you think you can wrap you mind around that? We are giving them target practice! HELLO???

[Duckman GR]

How funny, wasn't that the one where Dave says that O'Lielly just makes shit up? And after that all Billo could do was lie about what good friends him and Dave are, and how they were just being entertaining.

Yeah, I remember that, Shahid, Dave handed Billo his ass. The way to answer one of those when did you stop beating your wife questions is to not answer the question but to challenge the questioners manhood.

There is no war to win in Iraq, it isn't our place. Win what? Against who? A civil war isn't a game of winning and losing, and wars in general don't fit that black and white test in almost all cases.

Did the United States win the Civil War? Did the Allies win WW I, or just survive it. Who won in Korea? Did North Vietnam really win the Vietnam War, or did our wonderful capitalism come out on top in the end? European history is one long march of war after war jockeying for control of the same resources. Who's the winner there?

Wars are violent outbursts of death and destruction masked as policy and outside the box diplomacy. Winning a war is a treacherous and grotesque term that disserves all but the megalomaniacs and their wanna be bootlickers like Billo who view winning a war as some great accomplishment but forget the cost. It's like watching the Wall Street teevee people salivating over the next record breaking DOW close. Only with misery and blood and shattered lives.

Spit on Will Marshall? Absolutely.

[Nanorich]

What exactly is the definition of winning in Iraq?

And though I am happy to fantasize Letterman being part of the Far Left, he is too damn rich to be more than a flaming moderate.

[calling all toasters]

I want us to win in America!

Now, what the fuck does that mean?

["Q" the Enchanter]

Do you want a free pony for every American? Yes or no.

[Gus]

The answer was right in so many ways. What does winning mean, first of all? How does the U.S. win there? Does a U.S. win equal a win for the Iraqi people? It's a simplistic question, and Letterman answered it right. Oh, and David Letterman is now "hard left?" Jesus.

[c4logic]

There IS no WIN or LOSE in Iraq. The misadventure was lost the moment it was conceived. Iraq is an artifical state that was held together by a StrongMan. The natural, default condition is for tribes with generations of insults to seek vendettas against one another. Removing Saddam merely took the lid off the pressure cooker. The only way that a 'WIN' could be defined under these circumstances is for tribes who have been fighting one another for many centuries decide to sit down and mediate their grieviences and negotiate co-operative agreements. That will not happen until the blood letting runs its course. You cannot impose democracy at sword point, no matter how well intended. Did we not learn ANYTHING from VietNam? From the French misadventures in Algeria? By the way, the Military Industrial complex has won big time over all this. But you, me, our children, the world, and especially the Iraqis will be suffering over this debacle for decades to come. So knock of the win/lose rhetorical crap, ok? There IS NO WINNING IN IRAQ FOR ANYBODY.

[PSP]

War is politics by other means. No mater what happens, we've already lost.

[PSP]

And Iran won.

[gsmoove]

People here have been focusing in the wrong area. We should be bringing Bill O'Reilly to task for treating the Iraq war, the greatest problem facing our nation today, so trivially. He knew exactly what he was doing when he framed that question. To resort to questioning a fellow american's loyalty as a ploy in an arguement to stifle debate is despicable and we shouldn't humor the fascist as much as we do, but unfortunately we humor him and the host of other conservative talking heads and representatives who do the same thing.

[jane]

winning a war is like trying to win an earthquake. You CAN'T win a war. Thousands are dead, we are in the middle of an illegal war and our country and THEIR country (even more so thanks to us, of course!) is messed up in so many ways it makes your head spin.

David Letterman is actually one of those thoughtful americans who realizes what a mess this is, while still thinking of the innocent iraqis and soldiers. This isn't a simple win or lose situation. You can't win a war, but at least we have people like David Letterman who realize the gravity of the situation. This isn't toy army soldiers and lives that don't matter - well, it isn't unless you're one of George Bush's folks. They seem to think this is all a game. They don't give a crap about your son, your daughter, your husband or your wife out there or any iraqi citizen. Pledging allegiance to them is laughable. They DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU EITHER.

You can't win a war. Plain and simple. Killing is murder even when they try to cloak it with war. There is no way to win a war. Especially one who had no business starting in the first place. But didn't the UN try to tell us that and we went in anyway?

Which is why I think it's so laughable when guys like Bill spout off about "do you want the terrorists to win?!" There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. The US invaded a country for invisible weapons, with no UN approval and the rest of the world and half of the country against the idea. Now we're trying to blanket over the facts, make it illegal to protest or show the coffins of dead soldiers that come back from this monstrosity that is a 'war'

Who are the real terrorists here?

There is nothing to win. There is only pieces to pick back up because of what George Bush has done to us and them.

[Thanks boys]

Great boys
95bb37e8ec81d504e5c7ae4376b04c2b