Ceremonial Actions

[Chilly]

Jon Stewart last night articulated a question to Chuckie "Imaginary Friends" Schumer that has been on my mind about the handling of the Iraq war. Basically the question is, "Why does it seem like we are only seeing symbolic actions in ending this war?"

 

The President and Republicans surge plan for 20,000 troops seems like a whole lot of nothing. John McCain, explaining the idea behind the surge, characterized it as a complete change in strategy. Instead of enter, clear, and leave, the US will now be entering, clearing, and holding in order to ensure security and build the institutions necessary for Democracy to take hold. I'm amazed that this wasn't the strategy beforehand, as even my entry level classes on building Democracy have noted that security from internal and external forces and influences is a fundamental need for Democracy to take hold.

 

I'm no military expert, and thus I could very well be mistaken here, but isn't 20,000 extra troops a low figure for that type of strategy? And isn't this not a surge, but rather a long-term strategy that should have happened from the get-go? Clearing and holding to build democratic institutions is something that takes YEARS, which a surge is not.

 

The Democratic response to me is equally perplexing. They are passing a non-binding agreement against the action. Great, but what the hell is that going to do? The Democrats are saying we don't have time to wait, yet their stance is to pass a non-binding agreement? Schumer says that this is only the first step, and they are doing it to make sure a bill with teeth doesn't get filibustered. Hey Schumer, if it is really that urgent, and you don't want any more troops to die, why don't you do something now? Your party controls the flow of money, in case you forgot.

 

One of the things that these actions seem to show is that there aren't any real solutions for Iraq. If both sides thought we were f--ed, and are just playing politics, these are exactly the type of actions that we'd see. No real moves either way, but enough to satisfy each sides base, until there was absolutely no support for it any longer and the politicians which screwed up were out of office so they wouldn't have to admit their mistakes. I'm not sure that this is the case, but to me it is a possibility.

[molson_golden2002]

Jon Stewart last night articulated a question to Chuckie "Imaginary Friends" Schumer that has been on my mind about the handling of the Iraq war. Basically the question is, "Why does it seem like we are only seeing symbolic actions in ending this war?"

 

The President and Republicans surge plan for 20,000 troops seems like a whole lot of nothing. John McCain, explaining the idea behind the surge, characterized it as a complete change in strategy. Instead of enter, clear, and leave, the US will now be entering, clearing, and holding in order to ensure security and build the institutions necessary for Democracy to take hold. I'm amazed that this wasn't the strategy beforehand, as even my entry level classes on building Democracy have noted that security from internal and external forces and influences is a fundamental need for Democracy to take hold.

 

I'm no military expert, and thus I could very well be mistaken here, but isn't 20,000 extra troops a low figure for that type of strategy? And isn't this not a surge, but rather a long-term strategy that should have happened from the get-go? Clearing and holding to build democratic institutions is something that takes YEARS, which a surge is not.

 

The Democratic response to me is equally perplexing. They are passing a non-binding agreement against the action. Great, but what the hell is that going to do? The Democrats are saying we don't have time to wait, yet their stance is to pass a non-binding agreement? Schumer says that this is only the first step, and they are doing it to make sure a bill with teeth doesn't get filibustered. Hey Schumer, if it is really that urgent, and you don't want any more troops to die, why don't you do something now? Your party controls the flow of money, in case you forgot.

 

One of the things that these actions seem to show is that there aren't any real solutions for Iraq. If both sides thought we were f--ed, and are just playing politics, these are exactly the type of actions that we'd see. No real moves either way, but enough to satisfy each sides base, until there was absolutely no support for it any longer and the politicians which screwed up were out of office so they wouldn't have to admit their mistakes. I'm not sure that this is the case, but to me it is a possibility.

Great post Bluefire. The general who is leading the brave surge also wrote the Army's counter-insurgency manual and he called for in it a lot more troops for a city the size of Baghdad. So this is just the number they can muster, not the number they need, or think they need. I do not think Congress could get the votes to cut off funding but I just wonder where it would lead if they did. It might be a major constitutional crisis. I wish they would at least put that option on the table, but I guess they are afraid the right wing media machine would twist it into "The Democrats are going to leave our troops in Iraq and not supply them, feed them, give them ammunition, etc." And Bush probably would leave them there and dare Congress not to supply them. Only Bush can order the troops out. So I don't think it would be as simple as cut off funding and troops come home. Whatta mess!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Great post Bluefire. The general who is leading the brave surge also wrote the Army's counter-insurgency manual and he called for in it a lot more troops for a city the size of Baghdad. So this is just the number they can muster, not the number they need, or think they need. I do not think Congress could get the votes to cut off funding but I just wonder where it would lead if they did. It might be a major constitutional crisis. I wish they would at least put that option on the table, but I guess they are afraid the right wing media machine would twist it into "The Democrats are going to leave our troops in Iraq and not supply them, feed them, give them ammunition, etc." And Bush probably would leave them there and dare Congress not to supply them. Only Bush can order the troops out. So I don't think it would be as simple as cut off funding and troops come home. Whatta mess!

 

News flash:

 

The Dims are opposing this SMALL increase. Imagine if the Dept. of the Army requested 80-100,000 more troops?

 

Pelosi'd have a hissy, Schumer would melt down, Waxman would implode.

[Alaska Darin]

News flash:

 

The Dims are opposing this SMALL increase. Imagine if the Dept. of the Army requested 80-100,000 more troops?

 

Pelosi'd have a hissy, Schumer would melt down, Waxman would implode.

Where would they get them? After Mr. Clinton gutted the operational capability of the military in favor of the bureaucracy, we don't have the troops for that and the countless other endeavors we're currently supporting.

[DC Tom]

Jon Stewart last night articulated a question to Chuckie "Imaginary Friends" Schumer that has been on my mind about the handling of the Iraq war. Basically the question is, "Why does it seem like we are only seeing symbolic actions in ending this war?"

 

The President and Republicans surge plan for 20,000 troops seems like a whole lot of nothing. John McCain, explaining the idea behind the surge, characterized it as a complete change in strategy. Instead of enter, clear, and leave, the US will now be entering, clearing, and holding in order to ensure security and build the institutions necessary for Democracy to take hold. I'm amazed that this wasn't the strategy beforehand, as even my entry level classes on building Democracy have noted that security from internal and external forces and influences is a fundamental need for Democracy to take hold.

 

I'm no military expert, and thus I could very well be mistaken here, but isn't 20,000 extra troops a low figure for that type of strategy? And isn't this not a surge, but rather a long-term strategy that should have happened from the get-go? Clearing and holding to build democratic institutions is something that takes YEARS, which a surge is not.

 

Part of the problem - a big part - was the horribly misguided belief from the start that all we had to do was remove Saddam, and everyone would be so thankful that they'd just fall in line and work together to build a better country, so security was a non-issue (and yes, I'm both over-simplifying and over-exaggerating...but it's pretty clear that such ideas were an underpinning of the initial post-war thinking). Thus, the mission was thought to be simply mopping up disenfranchised Ba'athists and providing interim civil infrastructure while the Iraqis formed their own governmental institutions and eventually took over. Basically, the Kum-ba-yah plan.

 

The surprising thing is that it hasn't been a total failure. In significant swaths of the country, Iraqis have taken over much of the civil administration and even the security functions that were performed by Coalition forces three years ago. Untimately, the Samarra Mosque bombing a year ago ensured that what little unity of purpose the Sunni and Shi'ia had achieved under the Iraqi federal government was pretty much null and void. As I said a year ago, the Samarra Mosque bombing was the watershed event triggering the Iraqi civil war we're seeing now...which pretty much makes any previous US plans moot, as the Iraqi federal government is now totally discredited, sectarian militias are exerting power in certain localities, and at this point the Iraqi security forces are fighting themselves.

 

 

And 20k troops represents maybe 3k-5k combat troops, which isn't enough to accomplish anything. 20k combat troops would require probably 80k more support troops...and still wouldn't be enough. And would be impractical to the point of impossibility, anyway, since you can't realistically "surge" 100k troops.

 

The Democratic response to me is equally perplexing. They are passing a non-binding agreement against the action. Great, but what the hell is that going to do? The Democrats are saying we don't have time to wait, yet their stance is to pass a non-binding agreement? Schumer says that this is only the first step, and they are doing it to make sure a bill with teeth doesn't get filibustered. Hey Schumer, if it is really that urgent, and you don't want any more troops to die, why don't you do something now? Your party controls the flow of money, in case you forgot.

 

One of the things that these actions seem to show is that there aren't any real solutions for Iraq. If both sides thought we were f--ed, and are just playing politics, these are exactly the type of actions that we'd see. No real moves either way, but enough to satisfy each sides base, until there was absolutely no support for it any longer and the politicians which screwed up were out of office so they wouldn't have to admit their mistakes. I'm not sure that this is the case, but to me it is a possibility.

 

The Democratic response makes sense to me. They took Congress on a platform of "We'll do something about Iraq." There's realistic limits on what they can do about Iraq (they can't command the military to leave, for example - even if they pass legislation requiring the military to leave Iraq, the White House will appeal it to the Supreme Court and get it overturned on the very valid constitutional ground that the Legislature does not at all command the military. They can starve funding...which is just political blackmail, and who knows what'll happen if the White House doesn't cave in to it). Plus, there's the simple fact that anyone on the Hill with half a brain (most of them achieve at least that much) knows whatever we do in Iraq, we're !@#$ed (there's things we could do outside Iraq that would make a huge difference - low-level diplomatic talks with the Iranians would be a good start, except that "We don't talk to the Axis of Evil". ). So the Democrats best political strategy now is lots of sound and fury signifying nothing, and let the Republican administration take the blame. And it's a perfectly sensible political strategy...it just doesn't solve the problem.

 

Which is why, over the past few years, I've supported the Republicans on foreign policy over the Democrats. Sure, the Republican administration has some of the most idiotic and backwards ideas since...I don't even know when, Victorian England maybe, and manage to do more things wrong than right. But they at least try to address the problems, rather than doing nothing and blaming it on the other guy.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Where would they get them? After Mr. Clinton gutted the operational capability of the military in favor of the bureaucracy, we don't have the troops for that and the countless other endeavors we're currently supporting.

 

That's beside the point.

 

Even IF the troops were available, the short-sighted leadership in the Congress would oppose it.

 

They ran on one issue, the war. If they supported a massive increase, they'd be tossed out faster than they got thrown in.

[molson_golden2002]

Where would they get them? After Mr. Clinton gutted the operational capability of the military in favor of the bureaucracy, we don't have the troops for that and the countless other endeavors we're currently supporting.

You mean the cuts that were started under Secretary of Defense Cheney in the first Bush Administration??????

[Alaska Darin]

You mean the cuts that were started under Secretary of Defense Cheney in the first Bush Administration??????

Translation: I don't at all understand the subject but I'll defend my party blindly until the country implodes on itself.

 

Military cuts were necessary. That isn't at all up for debate (US Defense spending dwarfs the rest of the world, for no good reason). What is up for debate is the cuts that were actually MADE. Consolidating and eliminating waste is a good thing. Gutting capability in favor of larger bureaucracy or keeping expensive programs around for political gain are a BAD THING. That's what Mr. Clinton's "administration" did.

[molson_golden2002]

Translation: I don't at all understand the subject but I'll defend my party blindly until the country implodes on itself.

 

Military cuts were necessary. That isn't at all up for debate (US Defense spending dwarfs the rest of the world, for no good reason). What is up for debate is the cuts that were actually MADE. Consolidating and eliminating waste is a good thing. Gutting capability in favor of larger bureaucracy or keeping expensive programs around for political gain are a BAD THING. That's what Mr. Clinton's "administration" did.

LOL!! This from the clown who basically just blamed Clinton for Iraq being unfixable? Ya Dar Dar, I believe you when you say you are non-partisan, sure, sure. And taxes are theft but we need to spend more on military. And, and, government can't do anything right so let's spend more money--our stolen money!--on having our government fix Iraq. Oh ya, and everything is Clinton's fault

[Alaska Darin]

LOL!! This from the clown who basically just blamed Clinton for Iraq being unfixable? Ya Dar Dar, I believe you when you say you are non-partisan, sure, sure. And taxes are theft but we need to spend more on military. And, and, government can't do anything right so let's spend more money--our stolen money!--on having our government fix Iraq. Oh ya, and everything is Clinton's fault

Reading comprehension isn't your strongpoint, is it? [/rhetorical]

 

I said none of the above, nor did I imply it. Thanks for the typical strawman.

[molson_golden2002]

Reading comprehension isn't your strongpoint, is it? [/rhetorical]

 

I said none of the above, nor did I imply it. Thanks for the typical strawman.

Ah! I guess you were playing word games, fair enough. I forgot, you believe in nothing so that you have to defend nothing. Easy that way. So do tell me why you brought up Clinton cutting the military in the same thought about Iraq. Something about not having enough troops? I'm connecting dots and it seems like you are blaming Clinton for Iraq. I dunno

[Alaska Darin]

Ah! I guess you were playing word games, fair enough.

Facts are not word games.

I forgot, you believe in nothing so that you have to defend nothing. Easy that way.

The cool part about that statement is it's so ludicrous that the word can't really describe it. For instance: I absolutely believe you're a moron.

So do tell me why you brought up Clinton cutting the military in the same thought about Iraq. Something about not having enough troops? I'm connecting dots and it seems like you are blaming Clinton for Iraq. I dunno

That's because your partisan politics get in the way of rational thought (if you're actually capable of that).

[Chilly]

Part of the problem - a big part - was the horribly misguided belief from the start that all we had to do was remove Saddam, and everyone would be so thankful that they'd just fall in line and work together to build a better country, so security was a non-issue (and yes, I'm both over-simplifying and over-exaggerating...but it's pretty clear that such ideas were an underpinning of the initial post-war thinking). Thus, the mission was thought to be simply mopping up disenfranchised Ba'athists and providing interim civil infrastructure while the Iraqis formed their own governmental institutions and eventually took over. Basically, the Kum-ba-yah plan.

 

How does this type of thinking even enter the minds of the "experts" planning this type of thing? Democracy building 101 stresses the importance of security and keeping outside influences from getting a foothold in the country. Given the instability in the Middle East, its amazing that this was even considered, much less implemented.

 

The surprising thing is that it hasn't been a total failure. In significant swaths of the country, Iraqis have taken over much of the civil administration and even the security functions that were performed by Coalition forces three years ago.

 

Were these functions a success, though? If the coalition forces weren't focused on implementing strong democratic and security forces, which it seems as though they weren't, then the Iraqis took over institutions that were destined for failure. I'm really just arguing semantics here, but if it was doomed from the start I'm not sure it could be a "success", though I see your point that it wasn't completely failure either.

 

Untimately, the Samarra Mosque bombing a year ago ensured that what little unity of purpose the Sunni and Shi'ia had achieved under the Iraqi federal government was pretty much null and void. As I said a year ago, the Samarra Mosque bombing was the watershed event triggering the Iraqi civil war we're seeing now...which pretty much makes any previous US plans moot, as the Iraqi federal government is now totally discredited, sectarian militias are exerting power in certain localities, and at this point the Iraqi security forces are fighting themselves.

 

And 20k troops represents maybe 3k-5k combat troops, which isn't enough to accomplish anything. 20k combat troops would require probably 80k more support troops...and still wouldn't be enough. And would be impractical to the point of impossibility, anyway, since you can't realistically "surge" 100k troops.

 

Whats the point of this whole "surge" then? The only thing I can figure out in all of this is that its just congress and the President playing politics. The President wants to make it look like he's doing something (when he's really doing nothing) and the Democrats want to make it look like they are doing something (when they are really doing nothing). Is there any actual military basis behind the President's plan?

 

The Democratic response makes sense to me. They took Congress on a platform of "We'll do something about Iraq." There's realistic limits on what they can do about Iraq (they can't command the military to leave, for example - even if they pass legislation requiring the military to leave Iraq, the White House will appeal it to the Supreme Court and get it overturned on the very valid constitutional ground that the Legislature does not at all command the military. They can starve funding...which is just political blackmail, and who knows what'll happen if the White House doesn't cave in to it). Plus, there's the simple fact that anyone on the Hill with half a brain (most of them achieve at least that much) knows whatever we do in Iraq, we're !@#$ed (there's things we could do outside Iraq that would make a huge difference - low-level diplomatic talks with the Iranians would be a good start, except that "We don't talk to the Axis of Evil". ). So the Democrats best political strategy now is lots of sound and fury signifying nothing, and let the Republican administration take the blame. And it's a perfectly sensible political strategy...it just doesn't solve the problem.

 

Which is why, over the past few years, I've supported the Republicans on foreign policy over the Democrats. Sure, the Republican administration has some of the most idiotic and backwards ideas since...I don't even know when, Victorian England maybe, and manage to do more things wrong than right. But they at least try to address the problems, rather than doing nothing and blaming it on the other guy.

 

I think the Democratic response might help them right now, but ultimately hurt them in 2008, which is why I think their actions are a mistake. When the Presidency is up for grabs next year, the Republicans have great talking points for the Presidency, which you outlined above. The Republican candidates get to take the position that their party has tried stuff in the past, they messed up, but they have the credibility to lead the country out of the war (McCain being a vet, Guliani with 9/11, etc). They can easily attack the Democrats on Iraq for not doing anything about the Iraq situation and bring up past promises. The Democratic leaders for the Presidency have hardly any credibility on the issue, and since they are in Congress, are easily attacked about this. It seems as though the Democrats need to do something to cover their own asses for 08, something stronger than simply saying "we want you to stop but we can't make you". I guess the Democrats could argue that the President wouldn't let them do anything and didn't want to work together, but that seems a little hollow at this point. The Dems knew that he wasn't going to work with Congress before the 06 elections.

[molson_golden2002]

Facts are not word games.

 

The cool part about that statement is it's so ludicrous that the word can't really describe it. For instance: I absolutely believe you're a moron.

 

That's because your partisan politics get in the way of rational thought (if you're actually capable of that).

Nice, you steered away from putting down an opinion on the topic, again. Decade long occupation? You support, yes or no?

 

Why did you bring up Clinton?

 

Ok, I'm a moron, now answer!!!