An Open Letter to Liberals
I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm really farming for ideas.
What do people on the left side of the political spectrum propose we do differently about Iraq?
Should we pull out now?
Should we establish a schedule for withdrawal?
What do you think we should do, that the Bush administration isn't doing. I promise I won't make fun of you. You're a smart bunch, and I'm looking for different viewpoints.
With the upcoming election, it's an important topic. How would the left run things differently? All I hear from the democrats are empty statements like these from Hillary Clinton's website:
We must deny terrorists the prize they are now seeking in Iraq. We must repair the damage done to our reputation. We must reform our intelligence system so we never go to war on false premises again. We must repair the breach with the Muslim world. And we must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists.
Please be specific. Talking points and protest signs are not a plan.
What do people on the left side of the political spectrum propose we do differently about Iraq?
Should we pull out now?
Should we establish a schedule for withdrawal?
What do you think we should do, that the Bush administration isn't doing. I promise I won't make fun of you. You're a smart bunch, and I'm looking for different viewpoints.
With the upcoming election, it's an important topic. How would the left run things differently? All I hear from the democrats are empty statements like these from Hillary Clinton's website:
We must deny terrorists the prize they are now seeking in Iraq. We must repair the damage done to our reputation. We must reform our intelligence system so we never go to war on false premises again. We must repair the breach with the Muslim world. And we must continue to fight terrorism wherever it exists.
Please be specific. Talking points and protest signs are not a plan.
posted by Exador at
4:31 PM
7 Comments:
(crickets chirping)
By
Sarcastro, at 2:50 PM
Hey now! I was busy this afternoon. I got here as soon as I could, but it's not easy carrying around the burden of speaking for all liberals when I'm Exador's only regular liberal reader.
I tease.
If I had my way in Iraq, we wouldn't be there in the first place. I guess that goes without saying. But since we're there now, there we are. So, what would I do now? First of all, I'd have more troops in Iraq. I'd budget so that those troops have the support and equipment they need. I'd stop removing well-liked officers who seem to be making good progress and sending them home just because they think Rumsfeld's an idiot. For that matter, I'd fire Rumsfeld.
So, more and better equipped troops under compitent leadership willing and able to think outside the box working towards an Iraq split into three semi-autonomous states--Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite.
That's what I want anyway.
By
Aunt B, at 3:10 PM
OK,so
1) Fire Rumsfeld (who would you replace him with?)
2) Deploy more troops (I'm in favor of transferring troops from Korea, or Germany, or Okinawa, if they are needed)
3) Split Iraq into three,independant states.
By
Exador, at 5:02 PM
1. You could replace Rumsfeld with Mike the Headless Chicken and probably get better results and Mike's dead. Replace Rumsfeld with someone who's got some military experience, preferably someone who's got some experience in Iraq. If y'all think Rumsfeld's the most capable guy for that job, I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
2. I don't know where more troops are going to come from. Perhaps this is something the administration should have thought about before taking Rumsfeld's word that we could fight this war with relatively few troops. I do know that trying to fight a lengthy war with an all volunteer military is going to have long lasting and unfortunate repercussions both at home and abroad. I also know that trying to enstate a draft would hand the government over to the Democrats so fast your head would spin.
3. I said "semi-autonomous," you said "independent." I don't think those are the same thing.
By
Aunt B, at 5:14 PM
Can I play, even if I'm not a liberal? (I'm so far to the left that liberals don't claim me any more.)
What to do about Iraq? Cripes, the time to have thought about that was before we trumped and jumped. It's kind of mean to make me think up an exit plan for a war that I didn't want at all.
First, I think that we have to figure out what it is that we actually want from the engagement, since that will determine what we do next and what kind of timetable we are talking. Do we want oil? Then we need to start pumping and shipping. Do we want a puppet government? Then let's install our own set of bastards and let them bust heads after we leave. (This is known as the Central American solution. I don't actually favor this, but I can see this as one outcome.) Do we want regional stability? We can't accomplish this by only listening to one narrow group of voices in a regional polyphony. We need to step up the statescraft in a serious way. Are we actually interested in getting out? Then we need to act like it and one good way to demonstrate our readiness to begin to leave would be to open up actual talks -- like we would to end the very real war that this has become. So, I guess my first step would be to figure out why the fuck we are there in the first place and what we intend to accomplish. Some wishy-washy bullshit about "creating a free and democratic society" isn't going to cut it. What does that mean? Who gets to say when you're done? How can you measure your progress towards that in a way that is material and convincing? You can't impose that from outside and the current conditions are not optimal (occupied state undergoing civil war, low ability to sustain basic nutrition and health, destroyed economy/infrastructure) to do it from the inside when it's not clear that there's a groundswell of enthusiasm for anything other than turning the lights back on. The US tends to win wars based on taking territory and lose wars based on changing the dominant culture or ideology, so I'd vote for trying to create some state boundaries or something. You know, sort of like Britain did at the end of WWI...which got us the whole Middle Eastern mess in the first place.
Second, it's foolish to deny that there is a civil war going on. Not "the conditions exist"; it's already happening. We have had bad luck getting involved in other people's civil wars. We need to recognize this for what it is and figure out what we want to do about it. I agree that it's too late to consult the Prime Directive; however, we could do some real good if we were involved in brokering a unity government rather than this clown show that we're trying to run right now. Figuring out what they want (and from most accounts, the three semi-autonomous states solution is what Iraqi diplomats think is what has the best chance) and making it work for us as well would be the 24/7 focus of my diplomatic efforts.
Third, be ruthlessly honest about what it's actually going to take to accomplish whatever war goals are set. Wars cost money and lives; that's why successful governments try like hell not to fight them. The level of mollycoddling and denial (as though they can't admit it to themselves) is a real obstacle to military, diplomatic, or social victory. Rumsfeld is indeed an idiot and he, like the rest of the Cold War Crewe in DOD, need to go. It seems to me that they are trying to use a 1975 playbook to run a 2006 war. I'm not sure about his replacement -- maybe Ashton Carter? I'd like to see someone who has his shit together on Asia, specifically North Korea. He's a nuclear arms expert and is a leading thinker on technology and defensive preparedness. He also has been undersecretary before...but that's never going to happen under the current administration because he's a Democrat. The problem with party politics in wartime is that partisanship leads one to overlook a lot of talented and potentially helpful people. (If I were appointing AC, I'd do so as part of a reorientation of our global strategy to focus more on Asia and somewhat less on the Arabian Sea. But that's outside of the purview of the question.)
Yes, if we continue to engage this as a war we're trying to win in combat or hold a hostile territory, we'll need more troops. We are already too stretched and the guys there have been there too long. I think a short-term redeploy from Okinawa and Germany would be a good thing, but only after we figure out what we're doing. I don't know how big our force is in Korea, but I don't like the idea of weakening it right now. Better would be to decide that Iraq can't continue being an occupation and that we're not going to be a combatant in a civil war, with a brokered multi-lateral talk. I think that pitting three interest groups against each other might work; Iraq was a secular state for a very long time; as long as the fundamentalists represent a resistance to occupation, powerless and pissed-off people might listen to them and use their social support services. I suspect they'd lose power more rapidly if there's no more occupation to oppose and some legitimate secular politics in which to engage.
I know you were probably expecting "hearts and minds" stuff. All the chocolate bars and Pedialyte in the world isn't going to solve this one. I didn't even get around to talking about economic recovery program. Things are so gravely messed up right now that I don't think it's feasible even to propose such a thing until we get some basic strategic planning done.
By
bridgett, at 6:51 PM
Yesterday was quite a day, huh? Moving all those guys we weren't holding in those secret prisons we weren't operating to Gitmo where due process can be served by a court procedure that doesn't exist...
What a cock-up. (I'm not gloating here, I'm commiserating. We might disagree about what should have been done, but we can agree for sure that this was a botch.)
By
bridgett, at 10:13 AM
If you go off topic, then will rescind my promise and pick on you about your ideas.
By
Exador, at 10:20 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home