Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

January 19, 2007

David Weigel spends a week watching the Democrats debate whether or not to end the war in Iraq... and deciding not to decide anything.

← Drug Propaganda Thursday | Main | By the Power of Caracas, I… →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

thoreau|1.19.07 @ 8:08AM|

Here's what I tell myself, and I have no idea if it's right or not:

Rushing in to pass a dramatic resolution and spark an epic constitutional showdown with the White House won't work. The Congressional Republicans will rally around The Decider, who will ignore the resolution and cite his "inherent powers". Then he'll put somebody on a waterboard and laugh.

But if they let a variety of resolutions float around, while giving the Congressional Republicans enough time to read the polls saying "89% oppose 'surge'", then at some point they get 67 Senators behind a resolution. (The 48 non-comatose Democrats, Bernie Sanders, and Chuck Hagel and whichever 17 Republicans he can rally.) It might not be the world's strongest resolution, but it will be a resolution with two-thirds of the Senate behind it, and a quite possibly a 2/3 majority in the House.

This is greatly assisted by the hearings that will start in a few weeks, when the Dems (supposedly) plan to start grilling all sorts of people about all sorts of things, including fuckups in Iraq and corruption in defense contracts. That will make it far more likely that you'll find 17 Republicans willing to join Chuck Hagel in distancing themselves from Bush's Iraq policy.

Now, 2/3 majorities can do more than just pass resolutions. They can over-ride vetoes. They can ratify treaties. They can even impeach and convict. I'm not saying it will get to that point, but the point is that if they get a 2/3 majority behind something then the administration has no choice but to sit up and take notice, because 2/3 is a power to be reckoned with.

And if they should discover something truly awful in those corruption hearings, maybe 2/3 will do something drastic.

|1.19.07 @ 9:14AM|

Sorry, Dave, but you're making Dennis the K sound mature. You want to leave Iraq immediately, therefore anyone who doesn't is a great big idiot and shouldn't be listened to. The Democrats have all of 51 votes in the Senate. Only a third gets elected every two years. Yeah, it does slow things down, but that's the whole idea! Also, one of those 51 votes is Joe Lieberman, who did not run on anti-war ticket. Many of the senators who think the Bush Administration's handling of the war has been absymal don't think that taking 120,000 troops out of Iraq in the next two weeks would be a good idea. Maybe it wouldn't be.

|1.19.07 @ 9:43AM|

Why would the democrats not want to let the failures in Iraq be stretched out until at least early 2008?

|1.19.07 @ 9:46AM|

Wow Alan, who let you on this forum. There isn't a decision because pulling out in two weeks and having an orgy of self abuse and guilt over how terrible America is doesn't really solve much. Some Iraq, like all wars will end. The people in Congress will have to live with the aftermath. Of course if we left Iraq next week, the lessons would be that most of the world is unfit for Democracy and we are better off playing them off each other and ensuring that the most pliable thug keeps the animals in the zoo in line. That is fine if that is what the Democrats want to stand for, good for them. But, no more talk about Democracy, no more talk about American responsibility for doing things like propping up the Shah or Pinochet, no more sympathy for any dissident anywhere outside the first world. Perhaps this thought gives them some pause.

|1.19.07 @ 10:06AM|

Why would the democrats not want to let the failures in Iraq be stretched out until at least early 2008?

Because its bad for America, Iraq, and the Middle East?

Oh, but it benefits their quest for power, so nevermind.

|1.19.07 @ 10:21AM|

RC Dean,

I dont' think the Democrats are out to destroy America. Further, they think they might win in 2008. A disaster in Iraq doesn't sound like something anyone would want to inherit as President in 2008.

Eric the .5b|1.19.07 @ 11:25AM|

The problem, Thoreau, is that you're assuming a hard out-of-Iraq stance among the Congressional Democrats in the first place. The newly-elected Democrats, sure. The re-elected ones? I wonder how in-line those ducks really are.

What's going on might be consistent with a savvy anti-war party that wants to build up GOP allies to stop the war firmly...but it's also consistent with a party that's still not quite united on stopping the war, and yes, it's also consistent with a party that would let the war go on until they could make it an election issue in 2008.

VM|1.19.07 @ 11:31AM|

"The re-elected ones? I wonder how in-line those ducks really are."

1/2apies:

good call. Here's a CNN article with this good quote:

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

and in the house:

In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.

(Note: Morella got redistricted out)

Source

|1.19.07 @ 11:44AM|

I have to imagine that Congressional Democratic opposition to the war has, ah, firmed up since then...but how much?

|1.19.07 @ 11:46AM|

...And how many of those unhappy with the war are wary of being branded with "cut and run" or are even still inclined to stay-the-course?

How many of them think a Blue president could win the war and are waiting for that?

|1.19.07 @ 11:53AM|

Oh, but it benefits their quest for power, so nevermind.

Let me get this straight. Peoplle who seek power over others are likely to suspend morality in order to achieve the same.

|1.19.07 @ 12:48PM|

John: perhaps the appropriate lesson to draw is that American power is not unlimited and we cannot wave a wand and make things the way we think they ought to be.

Call this the "Lesson of Vietnam," which was a lesson we thought we had learned.

Other useful lessons? Force alone cannot bring a successful resolution of conflict. Call this the "Versailles Lesson." We thought we had that one down, too.

How about: a hostile state is preferable to a failed state. This is a new one, yet recent events in Somalia tend to indicate the US government hasn't fully processed it yet.

And: American wars tend to last three years before the population gets impatient. This seems to hold true for all previous conflicts. Even WW2, the Good War, had a very restless electorate in 1944. For the first time that year, the censors began to allow footage of American dead to be shown in newsreels in hopes of shaming a population that had begun the bitch about shortages and regulations. It worked for a time, but war-weariness had definitely set in and the government was feeling the pressure to end the war with Japan quickly after Germany surrendered.

|1.19.07 @ 1:47PM|

"John: perhaps the appropriate lesson to draw is that American power is not unlimited and we cannot wave a wand and make things the way we think they ought to be."

True, but I don't see how that fact justifies never using force or further in any way means that sometimes the options of doing nothing are worse than doing something. Just because going to war is long and hard and sucks doesnt' mean that the alternatives are not sometimes worse.

"How about: a hostile state is preferable to a failed state. This is a new one, yet recent events in Somalia tend to indicate the US government hasn't fully processed it yet."

I dont' see that lesson at all. What "failed state" has ever done the U.S. harm? Taliban Afghanistan, while a lousy place, was not a "failed state" like Somalia. Hostile states in contrast have done and still can do the U.S. a lot of harm and a hell of a lot more harm than some wiley coyote trick of flying airplanes into buildings.

"And: American wars tend to last three years before the population gets impatient."

That maybe true, but what if there is a war that needs to be fought that lasts longer? Should we just surrender?

|1.19.07 @ 1:49PM|

I dont' think the Democrats are out to destroy America.

I don't either. I also don't think they care much about what gets broken in their never-ending quest for power.

My guess is that there is a not insignificant number of hard-core partisan Dems who think that the worse it is in Iraq, the better it is for their party, and who are therefor have no problem at all with a total disaster in Iraq.

Patrick D|1.19.07 @ 3:13PM|

"I dont' think the Democrats are out to destroy America."

"I don't either. I also don't think they care much about what gets broken in their never-ending quest for power."

Question for those in tune with party politics: What were the obstacles that prevented the Republicans from dumping their resolute but incompetent leadership and fielding a resolute and competent candidate in the last presidential election?

Patrick D|1.19.07 @ 3:21PM|

"sometimes the options of doing nothing are worse than doing something"

I would add to this line of thinking that many times doing something badly is worse than doing nothing. It seems to me that is an important bit of libertarian wisdom.

|1.19.07 @ 4:19PM|

We could bring a permanent peace to the entire Middle East in less than an hour.

|1.19.07 @ 4:23PM|

"Why would the democrats not want to let the failures in Iraq be stretched out until at least early 2008?"

I can't say but last night I did hear Hillary Clinton say that the Iraq war needs to be concluded before the next president takes office.

Judge Roy Bean|1.20.07 @ 10:46AM|

"Question for those in tune with party politics: What were the obstacles that prevented the Republicans from dumping their resolute but incompetent leadership and fielding a resolute and competent candidate in the last presidential election?"

This is a dumb question, but here goes: Their candidate was the sitting incumbent. Has any political party ever dumped an incumbent president? Second point: in 2004, the war was going pretty well, 9/11 was even more freshly in the minds of voters, yada yada...

Judge Roy Bean|1.20.07 @ 10:48AM|

"We could bring a permanent peace to the entire Middle East in less than an hour."

Jeez, what are you smoking?

|1.20.07 @ 2:05PM|

Jeez, what are you smoking?

I think he was referring to that process by which we turn sand into glass via our nuclear arsenal. While technically he's correct, I don't think an action that would probably cause every other nuclear power to launch an all-out attack on the US would be wise.

Patrick D|1.20.07 @ 5:45PM|

Judge,

Thanks for the response. Not so grateful for the insult.

I was unsure about whether there is some party rule that requires the party to hang on to their incumbent. Assuming you know better than I, I will assume parties are technically free to present alternatives to their incumbents.

Was the war going well in 2004? That assessment depends entirely on the objectives, how well the plan reflects them, and how well new developments are responded to once the battle is engaged.

To use the administration's jargon of the day, if your primary objective is to secure small, hard-to-detect, highly mobile WMD weapons caches and labs in a country the size of CA with porous borders so they don't fall into the hands of Islamist terrorists you go in with the biggest force you can to do the job. The U.S. only invaded with enough troops to overthrow Saddam's gov't which, logically, was only a milestone.

The situation since the invasion has evolved to one characterized by terrorism, sectarian and tribal violence, and run-of-the-mill organized crime at least partially assisted by Iraq's neighbors. The administration frequently portrays these circumstances as unforeseen and, to be fair, much of the criticism against them is political sniping based on hindsight.

However, the administration was portraying the war in Iraq as the "central front in the war on terror" while it was still in the planning stage and has since described it as a "fly paper" strategy. Mission accomplished. What did they think the central front in the war on terror would look like and why weren't they prepared?

Another objective was to help Iraqis build a "vibrant democracy" in the heart of the Arab and Muslim worlds. No matter what your opinion of Arab and Muslim culture, the fly paper and building democracy strategies are logically incompatible unless you invade with the biggest force possible to protect the Iraqis from the Islamist terrorists you are intentionally attracting, not just overthrow the gov't.

Calling Syria and Iran evil and "putting them on notice" publicly and often, not invading Iraq with the biggest force possible to secure the Iraqi side of the borders as well as possible, and then whining about them assisting insurgents and terrorists that you intend to attract in the first place further highlights incompetence.

In summary, if you believed the administration's initial definition of the threat and accepted their objectives, then you must also conclude that the plan demonstrated them to be liars or incompetents. Either way, they are unacceptably dangerous.

Patrick D|1.20.07 @ 5:45PM|

I wrote that as context for this…..

I think the fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans highlighted the overall lack of logic behind the Iraq strategy before or after the invasion is one of many signs of the grave condition of the U.S. political system. The parties are so focused on protecting their "narrative" and defending their policies against attack from domestic opposition that they hardly consider whether their narratives have any basis in reality and their policies and plans have any internal logical structure. A political dynamic so detached from reality cannot continue long before reality asserts itself with disastrous results.

So, I would agree with RC Dean's comment about the Democrats not caring much about what gets broken in their never-ending quest for power. However, I would say that this is something shared by Republicans as well and that the level of awareness implied by the word "caring" simply does not exist in either party.

Patrick D|1.20.07 @ 5:51PM|

To complete the long circle, the Republicans were so focused on rallying around the Bush Administration and the Iraq war that none of them bothered to consider whether it was being pursued competently when the signs were there that it was not.

Judge Roy Bean|1.21.07 @ 6:11AM|

Patrick,

I apologize for the insult. You make very good points.

The deficient size of the US force I attribute directly to Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is a LOT like SecDef MnNamara, he is a micro manager and an ex CEO. We all know that CEOs are never wrong and are paid commensurate with their infallible logic. Rumsfeld wanted to do the Iraq war on the cheap, hence we "had enough troops". It became career suicide for soldiers to suggest that the force was too small.

I agree that neither the Dems nor the Repubs cares about anything except getting elected and wielding power.

So far as I know there is no rule that prohibits dumping an incumbent and nominating somebody else.

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com