New at Reason

May 10, 2007

Steve Chapman asks when terrible foreign policy became a litmus test of Republicanism.

Comments

|5.10.07 @ 8:32AM|#

Lets see. The Sunni's in Al Anbar have had enough of the jihadists and Hillary admits the surge is showing progress. But Bush should get us out now because past presidents lost wars too? In the present there is absolutely no question of which party is for winning and which is for surrender.

|5.10.07 @ 8:41AM|#

Bah. "Winning" and "surrender" are a false dichotomy, and, more importantly, absolutely meaningless words in the situation we're in. We won a long time ago. Now we're just sitting around getting shot at, and words like "winning" are nonsensical. You might as well say "We must win prison!"

|5.10.07 @ 8:43AM|#

There is no dishonor in a strategic retreat.

Rhywun|5.10.07 @ 8:49AM|#

We won a long time ago.

Exactly. I keep hearing "we're at war!" and I'm thinking... "against whom?"

|5.10.07 @ 8:56AM|#

Winning is securing a reliable oil source. Surrender will result in an economic defeat that will be most painful for the fools that want out now.

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 9:01AM|#

So, James, how do so many other countries manage to buy oil without invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries?

I dare say that if we leave and let the situation shake out, a leader will emerge in short order (albeit a nasty leader), and the oil will continue to flow. Indeed, once the power vacuum is filled the security situation will stabilize and it will be easier to get the oil out.

There is much to criticize about that outcome, but in regard to your oil concerns, well, there is nothing to worry about.

|5.10.07 @ 9:07AM|#

Surrender will result in an economic defeat that will be most painful for the fools that want out now.

Wait... are you saying that what we're doing now is the inexpensive option? Oooookay, then.

|5.10.07 @ 9:22AM|#

Sure Thoreau, a regional war between the surrounding states won't effect the flow.

|5.10.07 @ 9:24AM|#

AHHHG! The is the Gorram Middle East we're talking about. We lost when we decided to fight. The longer we fight, the more we lose. It dumbfounds me that there are so many who think otherwise.

|5.10.07 @ 9:33AM|#

"Winning is securing a reliable oil source."

I didn't know that oil belonged to us.

|5.10.07 @ 9:35AM|#

As I've said before, when you defeat the opposing army, remove the opposing government, and then install a new government -- you have won the war.

That is not the problem. The problem is the abject failure on the part of the Bush adminstration to recognize what would happen in Iraq after Saddam's government was removed. If they had recognized what would happen they could have either made a decision to occupy Iraq with the 1/2 to 1 million foot soldiers that would be required to keep the peace. Or they could have decided not to invade.

Since we don't have the necessary troops to occupy Iraq, and the Bush adminstration effectively destroyed any coalition that could have provided the necessary troops, the decision to invade was wrong on pragmatic terms (tyring to avoid another 100+ post on whether the intelligence was cooked or not).

|5.10.07 @ 9:35AM|#

You just hafta BELIEVE, man. Theological questions are not subject to cost/benefit analysis. You-Know-Who is on our side; if we pull out, we'll all go to Hell.

|5.10.07 @ 9:37AM|#

"I dare say that if we leave and let the situation shake out, a leader will emerge in short order (albeit a nasty leader), and the oil will continue to flow."

After all, they want to sell the oil as badly as we want to buy it. Also, $400 billion is too much to pay for this oil, not to mention all the lives lost.

|5.10.07 @ 9:40AM|#

Positively correct, Mr Warren.

Here's a thought: how about we develop alternative energy sources so we aren't dependent on these feuding tribes for their oil? Then we can leave them to fight their internal battles and focus on finding and neutralizing the true jihadists who wish to eliminate us and our way of life.

|5.10.07 @ 9:45AM|#

"how about we develop alternative energy sources so we aren't dependent on these feuding tribes for their oil?"

And also producing more of our own oil.

|5.10.07 @ 10:05AM|#

So, James, how do so many other countries manage to buy oil without invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries?

Because we do it for them?

Kind of like how so many other countries managed to deter aggression by the Soviets back in the day without having meaningful armed forces.

I'm sure we could still get our oil even if we weren't trying to clean up the Middle East. I just wonder at what price, both in terms of what we would pay and what exactly would be done with the money.

|5.10.07 @ 10:08AM|#

Winning is securing a reliable oil source

So it is blood for oil!

|5.10.07 @ 10:23AM|#

So it is blood for oil!

It must be nice to live in a world so simple that every complex issue can be summarized in six words.

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 10:24AM|#

carrick-

I think anon is just summarizing James Ard's position.

Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 10:30AM|#

So, James, how do so many other countries manage to buy oil without invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries?

By paying more money for the oil than the US and having more sluggish economies than the US.

People in the US like to think that economic success is all about laissez faire and gun ownership. Those things aren't irrelevant, but that is not all there is to it either.

|5.10.07 @ 10:33AM|#

I think anon is just summarizing James Ard's position.

Well James' position was already summarized to the point of near meaninglessness.

There is no doubt that oil plays a part in the justification for invading (justification which is still open to debate considering recent relevations in how bad the intelligence was).

We ignored 1 million deaths of poor black people in Ruwanda. We ignored another million or so deaths in Tibet. We have never taken significant action against Syria which is far more active in promoting terrorism in the region.

In general, we tolerate those problems because they don't have a significant impact to our economy here in the US.

Anyone old enough to remember the oil embargo in the 70's should be able to remember the vast, world-wide economic impact of what was actually a fairly small reduction percentage-wise in oil production (at least I have dim memories that it was small).

Having the whole middle east go up in flames will have long-lasting, world-wide consequences.

Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 10:33AM|#

It must be nice to live in a world so simple that every complex issue can be summarized in six words.

No, just the Iraq War. It wasn't about stemming WMDs or terrorism. It wasn't about saving lives. It wasn't even about making sure that the munitions designers got their timely and fair raises (that would be crazy talk!!!). It was about the oil.

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Having the whole middle east go up in flames will have long-lasting, world-wide consequences.

Yes. Yes it would. Good thing that we have been promoting stability and...oh, shit!

GILMORE|5.10.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Having the whole middle east go up in flames will have long-lasting, world-wide consequences.

too true.

Now that we've started the process, let me know how we plan to put it out by 'staying the course', and basically having our troops tending the grill.

i.e. What military solution at this point will get the end result in Iraq you are aiming for? Please share

|5.10.07 @ 10:43AM|#

On May 30, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine that the issue of weapons of mass destruction was the point of greatest agreement among Bush's team among the reasons to remove Saddam Hussein from power. He said, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but, there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

I always thought the invasion was justifiable. Primarily because the US, France, Germany, and Russia were all integrally involved in helping Saddam build his army and develop WMD. The US did this for a combination of "global strategic issues" otherwise know as "fucking Iran" as well as raw capitalistic motivations. The French, Germans, and Russian were only motivated by money.

Of course we were shocked when our puppet turned on us. And now it is our responsibility to clean up the mess we created.

There are many, many really good reasons for not having invaded Iraq. But the people that reduce the problem to "no blood for oil" just piss me off.

|5.10.07 @ 10:48AM|#

Yea, I want the oil. I also wanted a long term enemy with WMD potential removed from power and I wanted a foriegn battlefront to take on terrorists. I also wanted to see if a relatively rich country could make a go of a representitave democracy in the middle east. Shame on me for my greediness.

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 10:49AM|#

and I wanted a foriegn battlefront to take on terrorists

Did you ever think to ask the 28 million people stuck on the flypaper how they might feel about being in the crossfire?

|5.10.07 @ 10:50AM|#

What military solution at this point will get the end result in Iraq you are aiming for? Please share

As badly as the current administration has screwed up the occupation of Iraq, it is not clear that there is any way to recover at this point.

The only two "viable" options left appear to be to pull out and let whatever happens happen or somehow convince some new coalition to flood Iraq with troops to stablize the situation. It is hard to see how Bush can accomplish the latter, and he is dead set against the former.

Maybe the next adminstration can fix things, but I don't have alot of hope :-(

|5.10.07 @ 10:57AM|#

I have in mind the senator's (Daniel Patrick Moynhian) words to his daughter Maura Moynihan: "The war will last two weeks. It's the 10-year occupation you have to worry about".

The US never had the resources, by itself, to occupy Iraq. The day the truck bomb blew up the UN headquarters (which lead to the UN withdrawing from Iraq) was the day that the occupation failed.

|5.10.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Dave W. said

So, James, how do so many other countries manage to buy oil without invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries?

By paying more money for the oil than the US and having more sluggish economies than the US.

Which is completely wrong. Oil is sold on an open world market. Everybody pays the same price for the commodity.

In reality US activities in the middle east that keep oil flowing are a peace / social welfare subsidy to europe.

Peace subsidy because the europeans don't have to build up their own military to ensure oil flows from the middle east. This is a good thing because one thing history has shown is large, standing, european armies are not good for peace and stability.

Social welfare subsidy because instead of spending money on a military they get to spend it on social welfare programs.

WAZIRISTAN TOURIST GUIDE|5.10.07 @ 11:11AM|#

and I wanted a foriegn battlefront to take on terrorists

Funny, we have a wonderful one for you in the western tribal areas of Pakistan... but you left??

|5.10.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Even though I believe the invasion was justifiable, doesn't mean the adminstration should have gone ahead.

The first question you ask is this act of war based on a just cause. The second is do we have the resources to wage war. The third is do we have the resources to occupy whatever territory we win. And finally is the benefit worth the cost.

The Bush administration didn't make the effort to actually answer if the cause was just. They just lied and cheated to fake the answer. Lying and cheating are dishonest. But doing so when you don't need to is the height of stupidity.

It appears that the adminstration made an effort to verify they had the resources to wage war.

But it has been reported they clearly chose to believe that an occupation was not necessary. More utter stupidity.

And finally, who needs to measure costs and benefits when you're steered by the hand of God, right.

|5.10.07 @ 11:17AM|#

Ugh. I thought we were years past the "Aha! The one really real reason we fought this war is X, not Y!"

There are lots of reasons people wanted to do this. You can disagree with any of them or all of them. It isn't nearly as illuminating as some seem to think to just pick one reason being discussed at the moment and pound the 'See?! This is the REAL reason!' drum.

It just isn't that easy. I supported the war in part because I was concerned about WMD. I'm not concerned now, but it occurrs to me that the only reason I'm not is that boots were put on the ground.

I supported the war in part because I thought there was some substantial desire on the part of most Iraqis to just do their own thing in relative peace and that desire would trump the suicidal sectarianism we see now. I was flat wrong on that one.

I supported the war in part because I believed there was no credible threat to any middle eastern dictator at the time, and that squashing Saddam would at least make people believe they could be hurt. I'm comfortable with that bit.

Like I said, it is complex.

|5.10.07 @ 11:48AM|#

I just wonder at what price, both in terms of what we would pay and what exactly would be done with the money.

Uhmm...at the market price?? And they will do whatever they want with the money. If we don't like it we can buy from other places or we can develop alternative resources

R C loves him some free minds and free markets except when it comes to foreign oil?? In that case, he is all for using the force of the government to get it at cheaper prices and to control the actions of foreign nations?


At least the war supporters are finally being honest about motivations and leaving the whole "liberation" bullshit by the wayside.

|5.10.07 @ 12:01PM|#

R C loves him some free minds and free markets except when it comes to foreign oil??

Oh no. Including foreign oil. It may have escaped your notice, but after our troops move in, we don't take the oil. See, e.g., Kuwait, Iraq.

In that case, he is all for using the force of the government to get it at cheaper prices and to control the actions of foreign nations?

Since when is "controlling the actions of foreign nations", especially those who have already nationalized their oil industries (such as Iraq, pre-invasion) necessarily inconsistent with a free market in oil? How has the invasion of Iraq reduced the free market nature of the oil market?

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 12:08PM|#

I thought we were years past the "Aha! The one really real reason we fought this war is X, not Y!"

Well, those of us who were right about this from day 1 still like to gloat, every now and then.

Hey, gloating over how right we are is far easier than crying over the mess that was made when nobody listened to us.

Dave W.|5.10.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Even though I believe the invasion was justifiable, doesn't mean the adminstration should have gone ahead.

I think our cause was not just.

|5.10.07 @ 12:37PM|#

Gloating over how right we are is far easier than crying over the mess that was made when nobody listened to us.

Many of the reasons for leaving Saddam in power have proven to be not so right, in retrospect.

The valid criticisms have had more to do with the ability and willingness of America to remake a Middle Eastern dictatorship into something other than a blight on the planet.

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 12:53PM|#

Regarding whether we need "just one reason":

I don't really care whether the list of justifications has one item or one hundred. But it helps if it is coherent. Because there are 3 questions that we should be able to answer before we start and a 4th that we should be able to answer near the end:

1) How will we know when we've won so we can go home?
2) How will we know when we've lost and can't fix it, so we can cut our losses and go home?
3) (Here's one that the hawks will actually like) How will we know when we're actually making progress so we know to stay?
4) How will we know whether it was worth it, so we can process that lesson and factor it in the next time the politicians want to go overseas and kill people...um, I mean, fight a war?

If you don't have some coherent reasoning, you'll never get straight answers on these questions.

Those of us who were right from day 1 have two choices: We can either look at the pile of corpses and cry, or we can gloat about how the hawks never got their stories straight. Gloating is less painful than crying, so I'll gloat that I was right from day 1 and the hawks were wrong from day 1.

thoreau|5.10.07 @ 12:58PM|#

BTW, in his latest tape, the #2 guy in Al Qaeda endorsed the US staying in Iraq. Meanwhile, the insurgents have been using chemical weapons (chlorine gas).

This is what the hawks have wrought: A foreign policy endorsed by Ayman Al Zwaihiri and terrorist groups with chemical weapons.

Nice job, guys.

OK, enough gloating. I'll mostly be away from the intartubes for a day or so, but I might check in to gloat some more this evening.

Otherwise, see ya guys next week.

|5.10.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Even though I believe the invasion was justifiable, doesn't mean the adminstration should have gone ahead.

I think our cause was not just.

Two well meaning individuals can view the same facts and come to different conclusions. We disagree on this point. It doesn't make either one of us evil.

Well, those of us who were right about this from day 1 still like to gloat, every now and then.

Well, some of us think you were right from day one because of the gross incompentence of the adminstration in the execution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, not necessarily on the question of "justification".

|5.10.07 @ 1:25PM|#

""" In the present there is absolutely no question of which party is for winning and which is for surrender"""

Yeah, wait till the end of the year.

To me it is obvious that we are getting little with the current surge, sure one could say it's working some. That's a long way from being able to say it worked. The surge's best case scenario is that we secure Baghdad. Baghdad is only one city. To think we can acheive anything that looks like a victory by securing one city is BS. It's a halfass effort that will produce a halfass result. If Baghdad is secured, that force will need to stay for a while to keep it secured. Then we would need to apply the Baghdad fix to other cities while maintaining the troop level in Baghdad. Next thing you know, your talking troop levels that Gen Shiniski wanted and the Pentagon denied. Those levels are not going to happen, not unless we have the draft, which will not happen.


I'm using the shit or get off the pot philosophy and the Republicans, are not going muster the proper shit to get the job done. Come the end of the year it will be obvious to many Republicans and their support will drop too.

The sad truth is that "victory" is not in our hands but in the hands of Iraqis. We are not in control of Iraq, we have never controlled Iraq, nor will we ever.

|5.10.07 @ 1:32PM|#

thoreau:

Gloating is fine. Gloating simplistically should probably be avoided. For instance, your 1, 2, 3, and 4 assume static circumstances. You need to know what your objectives are, and the administration didn't do a good job there. I similarly criticized that bit.

I would point out, though, that the relationship between objectives and the situation on the ground can be more complex than you suggest. In particular, a primary objective can be achieved and the your initial preferences for withdrawal criteria can be made irrelevant by enemy strategy. "No plan survives first contact," as they say.

As long as we are talking about coherent reasoning, on what specific points do you feel justified in gloating over? There are no WMDs? This particular strategy is doomed to failure? We need more troops? No military action in the middle east can ever succeed? Blowback is always worse than inaction?

I heard a lot of arguments. Only a very few of them can be linked to Iraq in such a way as to really get to an "I told you so" moment.

|5.10.07 @ 1:34PM|#

"This is what the hawks have wrought: A foreign policy endorsed by Ayman Al Zwaihiri"

Wait, wasn't the previous argument that we should leave the middle east so as not to make these guys mad? Why wasn't that a 'foreign policy endorsed by Al Qaeda'?

|5.10.07 @ 1:37PM|#

JasonL: I think the "I Told You So" is necessary so that we never use the Bush Doctrine again.

|5.10.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Lamar:

That's kind of what I'm getting at. If people are gloating that they were right all along, what specifically were they right about? What specifically is the Bush Doctrine and what is the connection between its premises and this particular failure?

We need to learn lessons, but it is important to learn the right ones.

|5.10.07 @ 2:00PM|#

What specifically is the Bush Doctrine and what is the connection between its premises and this particular failure?

The devil is in the details, gentlemen.

I might point out, for example, that we have been handling Iran exactly as the opponents of invading Iraq have advised. We have taken a multi-lateral approach, we have not used military force or the threat of military force (there may be an arms embargo of some kind, but it doesn't seem to be incoveniencing anyone),etc. How is that working?

Iran's role as the epicenter of a growing worldwide terrorist movement is unchanged, and they are closer than ever to having nuclear weapons. Those who would say the invasion of Iraq has created a giant mess need to acknowledge that their preferred 'soft power' approach is facilitating a giant mess right next door.

|5.10.07 @ 2:04PM|#

I wouldn't be gloating too much around Kurds.

|5.10.07 @ 2:09PM|#

Wait, wasn't the previous argument that we should leave the middle east so as not to make these guys mad? Why wasn't that a 'foreign policy endorsed by Al Qaeda'?

If by "make these guys mad" you mean "provoke tens of thousands of people to the point where they sympathize with or join terrorist groups, while likely accomplishing little or nothing positive in the process," then yes. Staying out of dark alleys at night does not make you objectively pro-mugger.

|5.10.07 @ 2:25PM|#

The main problem with the Bush Doctrine is that preemption is code for unjustified adventurism (i.e., we may or may not be advancing our interests) and unilateralism is a recipe for a quagmire (even as far back as the Spanish American War - we won military then stuck around while our men were picked off by guerrillas).

"we have been handling Iran exactly as the opponents of invading Iraq have advised"

??? Are you high?

|5.10.07 @ 3:04PM|#

NotthatDavid:

You've missed the point of my post, which was the inconsistency in playing the 'foreign policy preferred by AQ' card.

|5.10.07 @ 3:27PM|#

I don't think Bush has a doctrine.

|5.10.07 @ 3:29PM|#

No, you missed the point of mine, which is that applying the You've missed the point of my post, which was the inconsistency in playing the 'foreign policy preferred by AQ card' to the previous argument is nonsense, unless you think militant groups would prefer not to fight a sworn enemy on favorable terrain. Hence the mugger analogy.

|5.10.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Okay, that was the wrong time to hit "post."

No, you missed the point of mine, which is that applying the 'foreign policy preferred by AQ card' to the previous argument is nonsense, unless you think militant groups would prefer not to fight a sworn enemy on favorable terrain. Hence the mugger analogy.

|5.10.07 @ 3:47PM|#

"we have been handling Iran exactly as the opponents of invading Iraq have advised"

??? Are you high?

Are you saying that the Iraq war opponents weren't calling for a soft power approach to Iraq, consisting of multilateral diplomatic pressure, maybe an embargo (or maybe not - remember the claims of a half a million dead babies?).

Are you high?

|5.10.07 @ 3:48PM|#

TrickyVic | May 10, 2007, 3:27pm | #

I don't think Bush has a doctrine.

At last I see someone else has noticed that.

|5.10.07 @ 6:12PM|#

RC Dean: Where's all this diplomacy you're talking about? Bush has steadfastly refused to talk to Iran. Second, there's no No-Fly zone over Iran. Third, there is already an embargo on Iran, so there's no negotiating room there. The situations are so different that they can't even be compared. For you to say that we are treating Iran the same way anti-invasion people advocated is grounds for assuming you are high.

I understand the anti-left (and increasinly anti-moderate republican) message you are making, but don't claim we're doing the same things in Iran that we advocated in lieu of war with Iraq. Truly a bizarre notion you have there. Let's also not forget that many people advocated a certain position on Iraq based on the President's manufactured case for war. We're not so naive anymore.

I think your mindset is basically, go to war or play around with UN wusses. According to your logic, since we are doing the latter with respect to Iran, we are advocating the same methods as we did with Iraq.