New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 22, 2005

Bob Woodward's got a new Deep Throat, the White House leaves its plank to pluck at Murtha's mote, and nuke-happy Mullahs sound a defiant note—in the new Reason Express.

Comments

|11.22.05 @ 12:01PM|#

The Sony DRM is even easier to defeat than with the tape-trick. Just hold down the Shift key when you insert the CD. Or only play it on Linux or Mac OS X machines.

|11.22.05 @ 12:16PM|#

About Murtha:

If the War Party is concerned that a pullout and handoff will appear to be a retreat, and would demonstrate to terrorists that we can be pushed around by their attacks, maybe they shouldn't go around the world telling everybody within earshot, "A pullout would be a retreat, and would show that the United States can be intimidated by terrorist attacks."

Just a thought.

R C Dean|11.22.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Like the terrorists wouldn't get there without us telling them. Sure.

|11.22.05 @ 12:56PM|#

A pullout would be a retreat, and would show that the United States can be intimidated by terrorist attacks

If we pull out now more Iraquis will come and bomb us again for another 9-11. We have got to punish the Iraqis with a strong consistant war on Iraq in order to defeet terrorisim. Bush is protecting us and fighting for our freedoms in Iraq. We should bomb the whole place, kill everyone who get in the way, drain out all the oil and ship it all to the US. We need the oild to fuel our thirsty SUVs. For the reason of safety on the highway we have got to get everyone into an SUV. That is why the armies drive the big hummer, for safety and why we need the military to enforce the 55 speed limit to save lives and protect the planed from terrorism and in order to stop terror we need to inforce copywright enfrigement so that our companies can use the money to drill for more oil so we can fuel our big SUVs and stop terror because everyone they want the biggest SUV on the planet to be safe from terrorism of rode rage on the highways to be safer.

|11.22.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Well, if the administration ever had given us some actual metrics for "victory" in Iraq, they could have saved face already.

If they had said, "Once the Iraqis have a constitution and X number of army/security troops, our job is done and it's up to the Iraqi people to take up the torch of freedom yada, yada," then we could have already started pulling out.

But no, they haven't even given us that, so they can't really save face if they back out now because they're incompetent and a bunch of pussies.

|11.22.05 @ 1:06PM|#

RC, Redeploying our troops could be explained either way. Why are you so determined to do Al Qaeda's spinning for them?

|11.22.05 @ 1:09PM|#

RC, what would you prefer: the pullout Kennedy had planed for 1964, or the helicopters taking off from the roof of the embassy? People were saying the same thing as you in 64, 65, 67 - good thing we saved face and stayed the course, eh? No emboldening our enemies there.

|11.22.05 @ 1:18PM|#

What Lowdog said. What we needed was a referencable list of objectives that we could point to and claim 'good enough'.

I disagree with joe that terrorists need any help whatsoever getting out the 'we drove them out' message. Expect any interest group to use the most self interested explanation. Also, it could as easily be argued that Murtha is doing marketing by claiming that we are getting wiped and accomplishing nothing. I don't find either marketing case especially compelling. We have to have the discussion, so both of those views will be out there.

As it stands, we need some kind of milestone or event.

|11.22.05 @ 1:25PM|#

The objectives should have been the elimination of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and the fall of the Saddam regime.

Now, because of the WMD screw up, we have to make something else up. You can't be trying to figure out the right circumstances to leave after you've gone in.

Of course the terrorists are going to spin it that way, Jason, regardless of actual events. They'll spin it that way even if your sought-after milestone occurs. My point is, the rhetoric this administration has been using has only served to further those efforts.

And Murtha isn't claiming that we are getting wiped out. It's telling that no hawks - not even one as generally honest as Jason - will actually address what the man is saying, and need to make up positions for him that are easier to argue against: that he says we're losing, that he's calling for retreat, that he wants an "immediate" withdrawal.

|11.22.05 @ 1:42PM|#

joe:

I have no problem with Murtha, but I heard him specifically state what I indicated above: 1) We are 'obviously losing' and 2) We are not accomplishing anything.

To the extent that he is pressing for objectives around Iraqi troop and internal security development before we leave, I agree with him. To the extent that he thinks marking a date on the calendar for a withdrawal is especially helpful, I don't.

|11.22.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Do you dress the way you rhyme?

|11.22.05 @ 1:46PM|#

"The objectives should have been the elimination of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and the fall of the Saddam regime."

I don't think this would ever have been sufficient, though both were necessary. Wipe out Saddam, confirm the absence or presence of WMD, and leave with no government in place just won't work. There always needed to be some sort of establish order objective in there, and that objective somehow had to include an expectation for security after we left.

|11.22.05 @ 2:03PM|#

Jason,

Had we found and destroyed a few WMDs and WMD plants, no one would care about the government. We could have left Iraq with no government above the level of the village, and our exit would have been considered a great victory - in the context we're discussing, which is the perception our exit would create among onlookers.

And "confirm the...absence of WMDs" as a triumph is wishful thinking on your part - this confirmation has made us look like, take your pick, incompetant boobs or dishonest, warmongering imperialists.

|11.22.05 @ 2:10PM|#

"And "confirm the...absence of WMDs" as a triumph is wishful thinking on your part - this confirmation has made us look like, take your pick, incompetant boobs or dishonest, warmongering imperialists."

Triumph may be strong, as that connotes popularity, but it was still a necessary component of the strategy. And, as I've said before, it is the only reason you can now be smug. ;)

And, I disagree about what would have happened if we removed the government and destroyed some WMDs.

M1EK|11.22.05 @ 2:26PM|#

Fred,

I like the way you think. In addition, I've noticed that Saudi Arabia is a very low-lying country. If we can get the seas to rise a dozen feet or so thanks to global warming, won't most of the bad guys be flooded? It's like smashing two cars with one SUV!

fyodor|11.22.05 @ 2:34PM|#

We could have left Iraq with no government above the level of the village

I doubt that. I always thought that setting up a new government and leaving the place in a stable state was one of our goals.

Of course, now the problem is that Iraq may never be stable. In lieu of the type of specific metrics Lowdog talked about, there will ALWAYS be the potential that we look like we're leaving to avoid more casualties. Well, as long as there are any on any sort of ongoing basis. Naturally I hope that will change, but for now there seems to be no evidence it will.

|11.22.05 @ 2:40PM|#

RC, what would you prefer: the pullout Kennedy had planed for 1964, or the helicopters taking off from the roof of the embassy?

Kennedy's planned pullout was wholly contingent on satisfactory progress against the communist forces (progress that had never and would never occur). And he clearly stated in several conversations that even then, it couldn't happen until after his re-election.

fyodor|11.22.05 @ 2:45PM|#

Oh goody, I've long thought that what Hit & Run was truly lacking was a good, heated, nasty, drawn-out and utterly pointless debate on whether Kennedy really would have gotten us out of Viet Nam if he had lived!

|11.22.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Now, fyodor, no one's being nasty. I just wanted to point out that I'd read something different about Kennedy's Viet Nam plans. Is history pointless? I wonder. I don't always agree with Joe, but I could never get nasty with him. He'd tear me to pieces if I did.

fyodor|11.22.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Now, fyodor, no one's being nasty.

Well not yet, but I can always hope! :-)

R C Dean|11.22.05 @ 3:09PM|#

RC, Redeploying our troops could be explained either way. Why are you so determined to do Al Qaeda's spinning for them?

Umm, because I hate America?

|11.22.05 @ 3:11PM|#

I knew it!

|11.22.05 @ 3:19PM|#

I'll have you know, Jason, I was smug long before this war began. ;-)

And as for "necessary component," you're still ducking the issue being discussed - how the pullout will be perceived.

RC, "Umm, because I hate America?" If you say so, though I'd consider "because I'm trying to win a domestic political debate more than put forward and intelligent foreign policy" to be more apt. Sort of like why Bush needs to keep fighting this war, despite - nay, because of - the collapse of his initial justification.

|11.22.05 @ 6:03PM|#

I've still yet to hear a good explanation of how a pullout will achieve positive results -- from Murtha or anyone else. His contention that somehow removing U.S. troops will improve the situation seems like nothing more than wishful thinking. What if the more likely scenario occurs and Iraq decends further into bloody chaos?

Regardless of whether you supported going to war or not, now that we are there, have spent 2000+ lives and countless billions, and seem to have created at least some rudimentary democratic institutions, is it reasonable to just bail out and possibly waste all that effort?

Again, even if you choose to disbelieve the evidence of Saddam's terrorist connections and think there were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there, there is no question that Al Qaeda is there now -- ask Zarqawi. How is a withdrawal now going to be perceived as anything but a victory for the enemy and an ignominious retreat for the U.S.?

What do we lose by simply waiting it out longer until the Iraqi government is better established and better able to fight its own battles? We lose a minimal amount of casualties at a rate which we can sustain indefinitely, and we spend a lot of money, which, given how much money the government wastes, we can probably also sustain indefinitely.
We've been there this long, why not wait it out?

When the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we leave.

|11.22.05 @ 6:42PM|#

When the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we leave.

When would even a nice, democratic government want us to leave? We're providing what rather little security they have.

Put another way, when are Japan and Germany going to ask us to leave?

|11.23.05 @ 10:20AM|#

David C.,

Our commanders on the ground are telling us that the presence of our occupying army is what is driving both the insurgency, and the influx of jihadis. "What do we lose by simply waiting it out longer until the Iraqi government is better established and better able to fight its own battles?"

First, there will be more battles for them to fight. Second, the presence of American troops impedes the growth of the Iraqi security forces, by encouraging potential recruits to join the insurgency instead, and allows the Iraqis to hand off their problems to the Americans.

The conditions you deem necessary for us to leave will never come to pass until we leave.

|11.24.05 @ 2:37PM|#

I grew up in Murtha's district (only a few miles from his house). He (or his father, I can't remember which one holds the dynastic seat anymore) was regarded as the biggest bringer home of bacon in the entire House. He trades influence and federal money like baseball cards, and brings an unconscionable amount of money into an area that long ago should have died with the steel industry but hangs on like Terry Schiavo. Murtha is always trumpeting this or that grant, subsidy, or handout that he brought to the area, and he keep getting elected because the people there are lifelong unionists who are convinced that someday the steel mills and mines will open back up and it'll be the 1950s again.

Regardless of the merits of Murtha's Iraq proposal, it grates that he's getting attention. He's so secure in his seat that it's a wonder he even gets challenged in general elections anymore.