Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The problem is that many Americans don't view the war in Iraq in terms of victory or defeat -- they see it as a mess, one that no longer has anything to do with them, other than the cost in American limbs and lives. I daresay that plenty of traditionally Republican voters would agree with this assessment (part of the party base has isolationist tendencies), and Republican candidates risk losing votes by advocating victory in Iraq, unless they can shift the argument to victory in the war on terror. Just as partisanship may lead some Democrats might root for a defeat in Iraq, I worry that partisanship may lead some Republicans to root for a terrorist attack in the USA (because this will demonstrate that the danger is real).

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 11:57 AM

I worry that partisanship may lead some Republicans to root for a terrorist attack in the USA (because this will demonstrate that the danger is real).

Then you worry about something for which there is zero evidence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 11:59 AM

Rather than "root for", I should have said "grim satisfaction after the fact; satisfaction only at being proved right." That's what I think some Democrats are already guilty of.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 12:16 PM

"...satisfaction only at being proved right." That's what I think some Democrats are already guilty of.

How can they be guilty of satisfaction at being proved right when they haven't been proved right? And in fact, in many cases, have been proved wrong (e.g., Murtha's slander of the troops at Haditha)?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 12:19 PM

I think you were asking a rhetorical question. Just in case you weren't (because you think I'm some kind of defeat-seaking partisan), I'll simply say that being right is in the eye of the beholder. I know lots of fellow democrats who think we've already completely lost. They equate the war in Iraq to the mess in Israel/Palestine; just a big mess that will never ever end because it has already gone on for so long. 10 days before the end of conflict in Kosovo, I knew people who thought the war there would somehow go on forever too. Thank goodness my heroes Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright held firm in face of left-wing defeatism.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 12:27 PM

I know lots of fellow democrats who think we've already completely lost.

I've no doubt. That doesn't mean they've been "proved right." It just means they fantasize that they have. And when one of them is Harry Reid, as it seems to be, it bodes ill for your party next year.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 12:45 PM

Isn't "copperhead" a slur? Didn't Copperheads actually fund the enemy (in significant numbers)? Weren't Copperheads racists? You aren't accusing today's anti-war Democrats of being treasonous bigots, so why call them Copperheads? Lets not forget the concept of a loyal opposition.

(I will refrain from commenting so often, if I'm commenting too much.)

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 01:46 PM

Apparently our Hillary fan is suggesting all the Copperhead Democrats were racists that funded the South rather than a significant portion that honestly felt the lost of lives in the Civil War wasn't worth the cost of losing a few bigotted states.

Certain, if he had clicked the link provided by Rand, Hillary fan wouldn't have built the foolish strawman.

Posted by Leland at November 19, 2007 01:56 PM

Of course I read the link. I've been reading Transterrestrial for a long time, even if I only started commenting. I know it is a common complaint that commenters don't read the links, and I pledge to read all links that I comment on (which might severely reduce the number of times I comment!) Also, I get a kick out of the Jerusalem Post for the same reason I get a kick out of Transterrestrial -- it is a look into the mirror world. I usually read (left-leaning) Ha'aretz if I'm in the mood for news from Israel. (See Haaretz.com) A friend once said "Why do you read Israeli newspapers -- a person can read the headlines and aside from the names of the politicians, he'd never know what decade it was." I disagreed, but I saw his point. Singer (the author of the Post article) didn't use the term Copperhead. My understanding is that today, the term is a slur implying treason and bigotry, but I didn't want to build a straw man. If it wasn't meant that way, then just consider this feedback.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 02:16 PM

You are right, the article doesn't use the term. But Rand did and linked to the article, so I think it is reasonable to assume his definition of Copperhead Democrats fits the discussion in the JPost of certain Democrats described there in. I think it is a leap of logic to suggest that Rand thus means current Democrats are racists and traitors based on this. That's not to say he doesn't feel that way, but I don't see it from this post.

Personally, I think that Dennis Kucinich fits your particular description of Copperhead Democrats. I point to his open support of Saddam Hussein after Congress authorized the President to use force, and Kucinich's current support of Hugo Chavez.

Posted by Leland at November 19, 2007 02:40 PM

H-S, while I do think that anyone who supports affirmative action is racist, almost by definition (they don't believe that blacks can make it without the government helping them, and their only criterion is skin color, not socioeconomic status), that was not at all the intent of my post. However, even if they don't actively aid the enemy with funds, they certainly offer him emotional comfort, with their continued calls for our defeat and surrender. I'm sure that they don't think of themselves as treasonous, but it's certainly the effect of their actions.

I am not proposing that any of them be tried for treason, though. I was simply pointing out the (to me, obvious) parallels of Democrats who wanted to give up on a winnable war, and their ultimate fate. And what the political consequences should be.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 04:08 PM

The problem is that many Americans don't view the war in Iraq in terms of victory or defeat -- they see it as a mess, one that no longer has anything to do with them,

It's most Americans, not just many of them, and the reason that they see it this way is that they're right. The embattled minority of war supporters, including the President, have declared victory and sermonized about defeat so many times that they have sucked the life out of both words. So here they go again declaring victory. There is not a chance that they will be satisfied with it. They will say that victory is still fragile. They will move the goalposts again somewhere else and still hate where they stand.

The fundamental problem is that the American occupation force in Iraq is too nice to subjugate the Iraqi people, but too nasty and ignorant to win them over. So they will spend a few more years shooting at those who shoot at them, then quit.

other than the cost in American limbs and lives.

And money. Their fiscal genius has been that this war won't cost anything in taxes. Instead they will just sneak the tab out of the credit base of the American dollar. But it turns out that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Posted by Jim Harris at November 19, 2007 07:17 PM

Jim, according to Rasmussen, that "embattled minority" you speak of is growing quickly. His approval these days is hovering around 36%, and I haven't been following day-to-day trends but a few months ago it was in the low 20s, wasn't it? Linky:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval

Also, just because victory isn't in reach (yet) doesn't mean that Iraq is unwinnable. I would say it's certainly within sight. If you have a reason why we're too "nasty and ignorant" to win over the people, I'd like you to explain how America is in that unhappy medium of simultaneously too nice and too nasty. Then I'd like you to explain the Concerned Citizens program, the returning Iraqi citizens, the massive drop in casualties both civilian and military, the Anbar Awakening, and other recent encouraging signs in such a way so as to support this narrative of "Iraq is unwinnable."

Then, of course, I'd like you to explain quantum physics to me. Just as long as I'm asking for the impossible here...

As for the money, I'll let you tell the people in Iraq that we're pulling out because we're wasting too much good pork money. Before we argue that it's too expensive, we might want to actually put in some effort to fund it. I'll leave the explanation of how erasing all our progress in the past half-year, letting Iraq degenerate into a mass of sectarian violence with Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia fighting for dominance, is going to benefit our economy more than us staying in Iraq as an exercise for the alert reader.

Posted by Math_Mage at November 19, 2007 07:49 PM

I've read that President Bush believes that Hillary's election is his best (realistic) chance for preserving any gains made in Iraq. Giuliani talks tough about terrorists, but he seems to have no plan for Iraq. Does any GOP candidate besides McCain have a plan for Iraq? Thompson's webpage doesn't mention Iraq at all (if I'm not mistaken). Does anyone reading this know what he would do in Iraq? Hillary's webpage is a bit blue sky on Iraq (paraphasing: replace US troops with international NGOs), but she clearly has a plan to preserve the gains President Bush hopes to make, and it is nearly certain that she doesn't intend to withdraw all the troops.

(Calling Democrats bigoted for supporting affirmative action seems much more fair than calling them Copperheads for their stance on Iraq. I look forward to an affirmative action post sometime. For now, I'll just note that Senator Clinton does typical Clintonian triangulation on this issue, calling for programs that shrink real economic disparities now while moving toward the desired goal of race neutral policies within a generation. I know I'm being manipulated, but as a moderate, I just love triangulation. )

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 08:46 PM

I've read that President Bush believes that Hillary's election is his best (realistic) chance for preserving any gains made in Iraq.

Well, I've read that humans never walked on the moon...

If you're going to make a claim for a ridiculous statement, you'll have to at least provide a citation for it. Are you saying that President Bush will endorse Hillary during the campaign? If not, then what the heck are you saying?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 19, 2007 09:03 PM

While I think Mr. Harris is making an incorrect assessment, his claim that "America is in that unhappy medium of simultaneously too nice and too nasty" is not a priori wrong. History is full of regimes that failed because they were brutal but not brutal enough. For a local case, one need only consider the Shah of Iran, who managed exactly the kind of thing Harris mentions.

Posted by Annoying Old Guy at November 19, 2007 09:53 PM

Fair enough! I was wondering where I read that, and was searching for a cite even before you asked for one. I'll do my best.

So far, the best I can find is this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300196,00.html -- that wasn't what I originally read, but it touches on the same speculation. The article is titled "Hillary offers little change to Bush's policies". It elaborates on Hillary's similarity to the President, and then near the bottom, it concludes "[...] President Bush has recently had some nice things to say about Hillary Clinton, leading some to speculate that Bush sees her as the Eisenhower to his Truman — a candidate from the opposing party who criticizes his foreign policy during the campaign, but will likely pursue a very similar policy should she be elected." You can also see http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=237359 starting on the 13th paragraph for an alternative perspective on a very similar sentiment. Before you jump on me, I fully acknowledge that both cites, and particularly the 2nd one, are much weaker formulations than the claim I referred to originally. As time permits, I'll keep looking for a better cite.

I shouldn't have said "I've read....." without a cite handy given the provocativeness of the claim. Instead I should have just said what I think:
Bush has reason to think that Clinton is his best bet. Clinton's statements and published plan for Iraq show that she would preserve the status quo with resepect to US strategy in Iraq more than any other candidate, at least judging by what they say and publish.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 10:12 PM

Sorry, that should have been "more than any other candidate with a realistic shot at the presidency, with the exception of John McCain".

Regardless of Bush's unknowable inner thoughts, my point should have been that Rudy, Romney, and Thompson don't seem to even have plans for Iraq yet, while perhaps surprisingly, Hilary's plan is consistant with the neo-conservative vision of a free and democratic Iraq supported by US troops for the forseeable future.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 19, 2007 10:33 PM

"How can they be guilty of satisfaction at being proved right when they haven't been proved right?"

I seem to recall quite a few non-Bushites saying the War
would cost $1 Trillion, take 5 years and cost thousands of
lives.

I'd say this is well proven

Posted by at November 19, 2007 11:01 PM

Violence in Basra has dropped dramatically since the British left. So how does one square that with the assumption that "not surrendering" or "the surge" is what made the difference. To Hitchens credit, he clearly does not make that case, though he leaves the possibility open that the surge may have helped.

Here however, is another take:

The thing you have to understand about an occupation like the one in Iraq, is that much of the violence results from the unrest that occurs when people have no sense of a permanent presence of authority. At the risk of going completely unscientific here, it’s like a class that won’t behave for a substitute teacher. The people have no need to please or respect the occupier, because they know that ultimately, that occupier will give way to a more long-term power.

So, looking at Basra, does it mean we should "surrender" as the Democrats have wanted? Or should we hang around for "victory?"

If we "surrender" would Iraq come together faster than in the presence of the "substitute teacher?"

I don't know. I just wonder.

In the end it seems to me that we Americans simply don't know what works in Iraq. Not the right which wanted to steamroll Anbar, nor the left which assumed Iraqi sectarian violence was a national pastime.

Maybe the Iraqis took a deep look at the violence that they were doing themselves and simply did not like it.

OK, time to get the 4 million refugees back and settled. That's the next job for the troops so we can win.

Posted by Offside at November 20, 2007 06:59 AM

> Lets not forget the concept of a loyal opposition.

No one has forgotten the concept. However, it's worth asking what they're loyal to.

In other news, some dissent is patriotic, some isn't.

To whom was Kerry's Vietnam testimony loyal? How about his "terrorizing" comments? How about the Obama's "air raiding" comments? Murtha's murder accusations?

Posted by Andy Freeman at November 20, 2007 08:57 AM

Hillary-Supporter:
Thompson's webpage doesn't mention Iraq at all (if I'm not mistaken). Does anyone reading this know what he would do in Iraq?

This is a link to Fred's webpage. If you click Issues and select On the Issues, the first topic is National Security that includes this line:
We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war.

If you click the newsroom, you'll find this Statement by Fred Thompson on Iraq.

Just to make the point clear; one can find Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq under very similar tabs on her website.

Recommend in the future actually going to a candidates website rather than speculating from a position of ignorance.

Posted by Leland at November 20, 2007 09:03 AM

Leland, I missed the Fred Statement. Thank you. What do you think of it? How do you think it compares to Hillary's website? (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/) Read articles (such as the Fox news article I linked to above) about how Hillary Clinton's positions on Iraq are similar to Bush's. Try finding similar articles about Fred (or Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee). You'll see that Hillary intends to keep some troops in Iraq (presumably with the Iraqi govt's approval) for another 8 years, should she be a two-term president. Fred Thompson doesn't sound like he has thought about how to bolster democracy in Iraq -- instead, it sounds like he wants to focus on terrorists and rile people up about Iran. (Don't miss Karl Hallowell's excellent mini-essay on Iran posted in a different thread on this blog). Fighting terrorists, at least those "with global reach", in the words of President Bush, is important, and so are anti-WMD-proliferation efforts, but don't you think we need more of an Iraq policy than that?

Also, this is the 2nd time in this thread you've suggested that I haven't done my research before posting. I certainly make mistakes, but I always try to do my research. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt regarding diligence.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 20, 2007 09:38 AM

"So, looking at Basra, does it mean we should "surrender" as the Democrats have wanted? Or should we hang around for "victory?""

How about:

Replace a tightly constrained British force with an experienced, indigenous (Iraqi Army) force?

From where did this indigenous force get its experience? Its training? Its leadership?

Why, from its American allies, of course!

Posted by MG at November 20, 2007 11:22 AM

I read Fred's statement as allowing the military commander (appointed by the President and in this case with the consent of the Congress) on the scene to determine the conduct of the war. Hillary's view is to call the war over (not lost) and start bringing troops home based on her simple presence in office (Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office). She also supports diplomacy in the region, which seems dubious in terms of Iran and Syria (e.g. IAEA diplomacy). So I'm unimpressed.

However, my problem with Hillary is her stance on:
American Health Choices Plan. The US government shouldn't be a HMO.

Comprehensive Government Reform. She seems unable to meet current government standards for ethics. Her key phrase is:
Americans are ready for a government that puts competence ahead of cronyism.

As for your suggestion: I've backed up my remarks. I gave you the benefit of doubt by double checking you rather than just saying "you're wrong". It would be nice if you followed your own advice. For instance, you could have said nothing about Thompson, since you didn't know anything. Instead, you didn't do research, you didn't know, yet you proceded to comment in ignorance. Your choice, not mine.

Posted by Leland at November 20, 2007 11:37 AM

>I read Fred's statement as allowing the military commander >(appointed by the President and in this case with the consent >of the Congress) on the scene to determine the conduct of the >war.

Leland, there is no doubt that if Fred Thompson was president, he would have the power to prosecute the war in Iraq as he sees fit, given funding from Congress. I'm looking for his plan - the one that would convice voters to pick him over the other choices. I do it would be ok to vote for someone who has "a secret plan to end the war", or no plan at all, but the character and intelligence to make good decisions later, but I'd rather vote for someone with a plan that I could look at beforehand.

You can call me ignorant, but hey, everyone who is looking for something is going to be ignorant of it until they find it. I'm just saying that I looked, and I'll keep looking. If you want to help (for our mutual benefit), that's great. I look forward to learning more about Thompson as the race progresses.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 20, 2007 11:51 AM

Another example:
...how Hillary Clinton's positions on Iraq are similar to Bush's. Try finding similar articles about Fred (or Romney, Rudy, or Huckabee).

I want to point out again all this takes is simply going to the candidates site and either clicking on the issues tab or searching on "Iraq". Seriously, I wonder why someone would find this difficult. Moreover, I'm less likely to be swayed by someone's reasoning for supporting a candidate on issues like "Iraq" when I discover the limited ability for such a person to actually research a candidate's position on "Iraq".

Posted by Leland at November 20, 2007 11:58 AM

End the ignorance! Here is Obama's Iraq Plan

Here is Edward's Iraq Plan

Again, go to the candidate's website and click issues. It's really that easy.

Posted by Leland at November 20, 2007 12:11 PM

Leland, I was saying that articles like the Fox news article about Hilary can't be found for the Republicans in the race, except McCain.

Rather than having a pissing contest, I think what you did suggest is a good exercise for everyone: go to each candidate's webpage and see what they have to say about Iraq. Rudy's webpage has a link to a youtube video that is worth listening to.
http://www.joinrudy2008.com/issues/
Romney focuses on Iran, not Iraq, in his issues section, but if you type in "Iraq" in his search engine, you can read his news releases. http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Defeating_the_jihadists
Huckabee has a surprisingly large amount to say about Iraq
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=2

My central question was this: if you were Bush, and if you were considering Iraqi policy in isolation (which is just an academic exercise, of course), who would you want to win?

My central point was that Hillary's position on Iraq should look surprisingly good to Bush.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at November 20, 2007 12:36 PM

Sorry, I don't look to Shepard Smith or Wolf Blitzer to determine what the candidate's positions are and for whom I should vote. I was hoping that point would be clear after the many comments.

I really don't care to play academic games to determine who President Bush would want me to vote for in 2008.

My central point was that Hillary's position on Iraq should look surprisingly good to Bush.

So what? You could say the same thing about Hillary's position on illegal immigration. I personally don't take it as positive for either the President or the Senator.

Posted by Leland at November 20, 2007 02:25 PM

Hillary-Supporter: Hillary only looks like a good choice based on Iraq if you trust that that's the plan she's going to implement. Considering her colossal failure of consistency regarding the simple question of support for illegals getting drivers' licenses, I find it difficult to trust that the position you see on Hillary's website is her real position.

Posted by Math_Mage at November 20, 2007 10:05 PM

Good point Mage. I will have to admit that a good reporter asking tough questions can help show when a candidate may be inconsistent with their words and their actions. Hillary doesn't seem to be consistent, and her husband definitely was not. Also, President Bush has been less than consistent as well, so I still think it an odd strategy to try to copy some of his ideas, particularly the least popular ones.

Posted by Leland at November 21, 2007 06:29 AM

Actually, the funny thing is that Russert's question wasn't all that tough of a fence-buster, given that Hillary hadn't compromised her consistency before the debate. She'd already picked a side of the fence, but tried to climb back on when Russert asked that question.

BTW, which positions has Bush been inconsistent on? Between the BDS demonizers and the people forced to consistently support him by polarization, I've found it hard to get an accurate picture of the guy.

Hmmm...a thought. I was going to say "between the BDS demonizers and the mindless supporters", but that lead to another realization: the "mindless supporters" don't really exist. The fight is constantly between the people who say "Bush is the devil, and Cheney is his prophet, impeach now!" and the people who say "Bush did some bad things, but is ultimately decent." But the BDS demonizers need to cast the latter group as mindless lackeys in order to have a debate, it seems. Sad, really.

Posted by Math_Mage at November 22, 2007 02:57 PM

Math_Mage:
BTW, which positions has Bush been inconsistent on?

Count me as one who wonders at the wisdom of creating the Office of Homeland Security and then not strongly enforcing our immigration laws and securing the borders (i.e. a fence with federal law enforcement encouraged to use necessary means to protect its integrity).

The concept of combining some of the agencies was good. However, President Bush didn't really combine some agencies other than putting them under a central umbrella. Worse he created another agency with the TSA. Why not modify the use of the US Coast Guard, US Customs, or ICE for the TSA role? All of them have a function for protecting shipping ports, why not the same for airports? BATF should be disbanded, and where some of its law enforcement roles are necessary, but them in the FBI.

Imagine the scenario of tracking a terrorist gun smuggling operation across the Canadian Border with Montana. Think of how many federal law enforcement agencies could claim jurisdiction and protect information gathering to secure their own jurisdiction.

Posted by Leland at November 23, 2007 01:02 PM

Post a comment