Buried inside this New York Times piece (via TNR's &c.) is this exchange:
In a town-hall-style meeting attended by more than 400 people, with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Representative Charles B. Rangel beside him, Mr. Kerry came under attack from the left when a retired professor of mathematics, Walter Daum, questioned him on Iraq."You said, `Stay the course,' but what the U.S. is doing is bombing hospitals, bombing mosques, killing hundreds of civilians," Mr. Daum, 64, said. "Is that the criminal course you want to stay? It's an imperialist country fighting an imperialist war. At one time you opposed an imperialist war. I'm old enough to have done that myself."
Mr. Daum, who called himself a socialist, continued: "People hate George Bush. But by the end of your presidency, people will hate you for the same thing."
As several people in the audience hooted in support, Mr. Kerry answered: "I have consistently been critical of how we got where we are. But we are where we are, sir, and it would be unwise beyond belief for the United States of America to leave a failed Iraq in its wake..."
It's good to see Kerry smack down this sort of extreme leftist ridiculousness with a strong, yet sensible response. Even though Kerry has yet to provide specifics for his plan in Iraq, something the right has begun criticizing him for, he clearly understands how crucial it is that we succeed now that we're there.
Besides, the situation there will very likely have changed by the time he's elected president. Ignoring the fact that he clearly has the right attitude towards Iraq in favor of clamoring for unimportant details is just another rhetorical trick in an attempt to discredit Kerry. If anyone should be providing a detailed plan for Iraq, it's Bush. Unfortunately, he's not doing that. He doesn't even know who will take control of Iraq on the rapidly approaching June 30th. Of course, who needs details when you're strong, confident, and always right?
Well, according to those quotes I wouldn't call Mr. Daum ridiculous. He may very well be right. After all, we are an imperialist country fighting an imperialist war, and it could end in total disaster (I would argue that it has already caused a foreign relations disaster)
When people point this out to me here in Germany, I usually respond that imperalism is not 'bad' in itself--in fact often underrated. For one thing, increasing US power does not necessarily mean lessening Iraqi power--it isn't a zero-sum game. And national self-determination is a trickier concept than it seems--the US leaving Iraq does not mean self-determination for Iraqis, since it's perfectly legitimate to argue there is no self-determination without free elections. Certain socialists of the splinter party variety pretend that if the US leaves, workers' councils in the cities will take over--I have no real idea about it, but this sounds highly unlikely.
As for the Vietnam analogy... I don't think the war in Iraq is any more defensible on a strictly legalistic level, but it is more defensible on a practical level, since 1) Comparing the conditions under which the wars took place, Iraq is much more likely to be a US success and a US client regime would likely be a real improvement for Iraqis 2) A government under Ho Chi Minh, with socialist allies, was arguably morally preferrable to the sort of Baathist or Islamist government awaiting the Iraqis, especially given the fact that the US client regime in Vietnam was dictatorial/terrorist.
All that said, I would lean towards the idea of getting out as soon as a real regime is in place and has the power to defend itself, followed by a public relations blitz advertising how great we treated the Iraqis and how we kept our word (cough bullshit cough). But again, I have no idea what the actual facts are.
Obviously, Kerry won't go near this sort of language. We'll see how long he can keep this up without pissing off the Left if the situation deteriorates.
Well, according to those quotes I wouldn't call Mr. Daum ridiculous. He may very well be right. After all, we are an imperialist country fighting an imperialist war, and it could end in total disaster (I would argue that it has already caused a foreign relations disaster)
Did you read the article? He was clearly calling for us to pull out now. From the article: "I want the Americans out!" Mr. Daum shouted. That is foolishness and Kerry called him on it.
Furthermore, we are not an imperialist country. To claim as much just muddies the term. For clarity:
Imperialism: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
The goal for Iraq is to set up a legitimate, stable, liberal democratic government capable of self-rule. Yes, we control it right now, but that is a necessary, temporary situation. Yes, it will likely be an American ally (though that is far from certain), but that does not mean the US will have even "indirect control over the political or economic life" of Iraq. There are many nations we have influence with; that does not make them our colonies.
All that said, I would lean towards the idea of getting out as soon as a real regime is in place and has the power to defend itself
Ummm... other than Kucinich-types, who is claiming we should do anything else? I don't think even Rumsfeld wants us in Iraq any longer than we need to be to ensure that the country is stable and able to stay that way on its own.
I don't think the war in Iraq is any more defensible on a strictly legalistic level, but it is more defensible on a practical level
The legality of the war ceased to be an issue the day we invaded. It is a fait accompli. Our concerns now should be strictly pragmatic.
Obviously, Kerry won't go near this sort of language. We'll see how long he can keep this up without pissing off the Left if the situation deteriorates.
He won't go near what sort of language? I'm not certain what you mean here. Either way, I don't think he's too worried about pissing off the anti-war crowd with his statements. It's pretty clear that he understands the necessity of finishing the job in Iraq successfully. I don't doubt that part of his insistence on this is meant to reassure the swing voters and even peel off some dissatisfied Republicans, but he also seems to mean it quite sincerely.
I for one think that we need to get out of Iraq.
The people there do not want us there. Its a waste of time. There will just be more troops being killed. There is no point being there other that just killing innocent people and creating a more anti-U.S. presence. The US cannot just go to countries it feels need democracy. If a country invaded us and tried to force it views on us, I think we would react the same way.
You're making two separate, unrelated points. The first is "we need to get out of Iraq" and the second, "[t]he US cannot just go to countries it feels need democracy". While I agree with the second one, it's not a reason for leaving Iraq now nor is it even relevant to the current situation. Think it through. What would Iraq be like if we simply pulled out all of our troops and left right now, leaving the country completely on its own?
As for your comment about people getting killed, that's what happens in wars. If you're committed to winning, you have to accept the fact that people are going to die, both soldiers and civilians. That's one of the many reasons I was against invading Iraq in the first place. Still, it's not a reason to leave now that we're there.
Well not really trying to argue. Just giving my thoughts on the matter.
Same here, but it's worthwhile to debate one's ideas to see how well they hold up. Otherwise you're probably not seeing some weakness in your opinions that might get pointed out to you by someone else. What's the point of having political opinions at all if you're not prepared to think about them, discuss them, and defend them?
"As for the Vietnam analogy... I don't think the war in Iraq is any more defensible on a strictly legalistic level, but it is more defensible on a practical level"
To those I talk to about this subject, this point is getting beaten into the ground and I dont see it as a "legally undefensible" war.
"Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,"
This is only one portion of the resolution that was broken.
I know that in months previous to the invasion, Hussein offered to let inspectors return, but is that not too little too late? If the U.N. passes a resolution who is to say that the nation implemented within the resolution can set its own rules about when they want to follow them? The only error I find in our invasion is timing. would it have been a better invasion had we gone in immediately after the first disregard of the rules? the second? Would it have been better handled during the Clinton admin.? I dont neccesarily see any problems with our course of action. I do have a problem with the U.N.'s inaction. I also have a problem with the current administration's handling of the aftermath. The crackdown in Fallujah is a step in the right direction, but things like that needed to happen earlier. There though is the other side of the sword, to much pressure could cause more action against us. I truly believe that the admin. hoped the resistance would burn out, but it didn't and our fortification is the only option now. Most of us know pulling out, or cutting and running is not an option. My other support for the operation is that we will have a tactically advantageous position in the area for future issuses, should they arise. I don't deny that the whole thing has gotten fairly messy, but I am very glad that we have not pulled out like we have in the past when things got a little harder than we expected. (see Somalia) If Kerry gets the office I hope he has the wherewithal to keep up the operation, and finish it to an advantageous outcome.
The crackdown in Fallujah is a step in the right direction, but things like that needed to happen earlier. There though is the other side of the sword, to much pressure could cause more action against us. I truly believe that the admin. hoped the resistance would burn out, but it didn't and our fortification is the only option now. Most of us know pulling out, or cutting and running is not an option. My other support for the operation is that we will have a tactically advantageous position in the area for future issuses, should they arise. I don't deny that the whole thing has gotten fairly messy, but I am very glad that we have not pulled out like we have in the past when things got a little harder than we expected. (see Somalia) If Kerry gets the office I hope he has the wherewithal to keep up the operation, and finish it to an advantageous outcome.
The crackdown in Fallujah was most definitely not a step in the right direction. It was an overly harsh response seeking revenge for the killing of four contractors by extremists who had most likely already left the city. All it did was increase the anti-American sentiment in Iraq by making our forces seem like uncaring brutes with no regard for the lives of ordinary Iraqi citizens. You realize that "too much pressure could cause more action against us" but haven't made the logical step to realize that the response to Fallujah qualifies exactly as that. Furthermore, the murder of the four contractors was in retaliation to the assassination of Yassin by the Israeli forces. Many of the extremists already see our occupation of Iraq in the same light as they do Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The recently announced agreement to Sharon's plans will only further this connection in the minds of even the more moderate elements of the Iraqi public. I'm not saying that pulling out of Gaza is bad or trying to get into a discussion about the mess that is the Israel/Palestine conflict, but the timing of that announcement is horrific. Juan Cole has an excellent article in Salon today that discusses the Israeli connection in more detail. Also, go back and read the Fallujah roundups I posted a few days ago if you haven't already for more background on this situation. Our disproportionate use of force over the past week has only worsened our relations with the Iraqis, strengthened movements like Moqtada al-Sadr's, and brought the previously antagonistic and separate insurgent groups closer together. The excessive application of force has been and will be counterproductive. It will not succeed.
Mallarme,
Sorry, I didn't read the article. Anyway, I wasn't really disagreeing with you--just mouthing off really. Obviously, getting everybody "out now" would be ridiculous. However, proposing a concrete exit strategy, as Byrd and Kucinich are urging, is IMO a perfectly respectable POV. As long as Kerry fails to make such a proposal he will continue to be criticised, whether justly or unjustly. I'm pretty much on the fence on the matter right now.
As for imperialism, we are a "liberal" or "neo" imperalist power, seeking to extend our military and economic hegemony, even if we don't directly control the governments we establish. With few exceptions, liberal imperialism is the only kind of imperalism that has been meaningful since WWI. Another way to put it is "liberal hegemony" or establishing a "liberal international order". The fact that America is largely determining both the content of the future Iraqi constitution and the conditions under which it is written, added to the fact that we will likely maintain an military and economic presence there, supports the point. Of course, I am not suggesting that liberal imperalism or liberal hegemony are bad ideas in themselves, although I obviously feel the way we are going about it is totally wrong.
As for Kerry, the problem with him is that as far as I know he isn't making a real critique of how and why the current strategy of global hegemony by means of unilateral wars is unsustainable as well as practically AND morally wrong. Maybe this is good political strategy. But if Dean was our candidate, we would at least have a debate.
Greg,
The people responsible for interpreting international law are the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council, who have made their views crystal clear on the matter. In any case, breaking a UN resolution is not legal ground for war unless force is authorized. There was merely the threat of future force in 1441--meaning a new resolution was necessary. Attacking as we did sets a bad precedent for the world and suggests we're not interested in common standards of conduct, not to mention pissing everybody off and giving the Iraqis good reason to believe the West is divided and America won't last long.
As for the actual conduct of the war, I haven't any doubt whatsoever that Clinton would have been far more successful on a diplomatic level. But whether that would have made much difference on the ground is hard to say.
"You realize that "too much pressure could cause more action against us" but haven't made the logical step to realize that the response to Fallujah qualifies exactly as that."
I should have been more clear on that point, as I meant that the pressure we are using should have been used earlier in the war to set a precedent. We would have had to use less, and would have gotten further. I'm all for training Iraqi defense and police forces, but if they wont act we must. Violence begets violence and so on, but there is no diplomatic answer on the ground. Violence is sadly all you have. I did read the fallujah roundups, and found them a good acoount of on the ground reporting, but I cant agree with all that was said, or at least how it was stated. Not saying that anything was an outright lie, just seemed information was left out to paint a different picture. the sniper shots through the ambulance winshield for example. Were the ambulances clearly marked? Were there checkpoints there were supposed to stop at? From a tactical standpoint a sniper would never risk giving away his hide position to fire on something as worthless as an ambulance. The people inside are of no use, as they are most likely wounded. Unless, the ambulance was carrying something other than the wounded, perhaps ammo, or more troops. If that was the case we have all rights to fire as that is a breach of the rules. I will write more in a bit, I gotta go eat breakfast.
However, proposing a concrete exit strategy, as Byrd and Kucinich are urging, is IMO a perfectly respectable POV. As long as Kerry fails to make such a proposal he will continue to be criticised, whether justly or unjustly. I'm pretty much on the fence on the matter right now.
I don't think we really need to be worrying about an exit strategy per se. Stability and a legitimate government should be our primary concerns. Once we have those in place, then the exit will be rather simple. So, if you want to consider that an exit strategy, then I suppose you can, but I don't think that's what you meant by that (correct me if I'm wrong).
As for imperialism, we are a "liberal" or "neo" imperalist power, seeking to extend our military and economic hegemony, even if we don't directly control the governments we establish. With few exceptions, liberal imperialism is the only kind of imperalism that has been meaningful since WWI. Another way to put it is "liberal hegemony" or establishing a "liberal international order".
Ah well, that's not what you wrote, now is it? Precise language is useful in these types of discussions. Calling the U.S. an imperialist power without qualifying that term just makes you sound like a nut. Also, if you're talking about liberal imperialism, then it's just silly for your German friends to be criticizing the U.S. for it considering that they're part of the EU.
As for Kerry, the problem with him is that as far as I know he isn't making a real critique of how and why the current strategy of global hegemony by means of unilateral wars is unsustainable as well as practically AND morally wrong.
Umm... do you really think that's the sort of debate most people would even be interested in having even if they were capable of understanding it? I don't mean to say that most people are too stupid to understand, but that the average American is unlikely to be interested in learning the finer points of foreign policy or thinking critically about it, both prerequisites to that sort of debate. Furthermore, I don't think Kerry is going to be proposing any unilateral wars. I don't even think Bush would be able to propose another one in the next five years even if he wanted to. It's not like this is some long-standing American foreign policy. It's a relatively isolated incident without much precedent in our nation's history, so expecting Kerry to debate it as if it were is a bit unrealistic. Granted, I'm not a US history buff, so I could be wrong, but my impression is that we typically get international consensus of some legitimate sort before launching wars since Vietnam. Otherwise, we just try to undermine regimes or support coups, but that's a different discussion.
I should have been more clear on that point, as I meant that the pressure we are using should have been used earlier in the war to set a precedent. We would have had to use less, and would have gotten further. I'm all for training Iraqi defense and police forces, but if they wont act we must. Violence begets violence and so on, but there is no diplomatic answer on the ground. Violence is sadly all you have.
Maybe we should have been more forceful from the start, though I'm not convinced of that. Even so, it doesn't mean that even more force now is the answer. You're a bit quick to dismiss diplomatic solutions for my taste. Things were going rather well until we decided to get revenge in Fallujah and shut down al-Sadr's newspaper.
I did read the fallujah roundups, and found them a good acoount of on the ground reporting, but I cant agree with all that was said, or at least how it was stated. Not saying that anything was an outright lie, just seemed information was left out to paint a different picture. the sniper shots through the ambulance winshield for example. Were the ambulances clearly marked?
Yes, they were. I know the posts I made didn't include any pictures, but here's one:
http://www.empirenotes.org/ambula.jpg
I would have liked some more context on the sniping as well. It's also been suggested that some of the civilian casualties were caused by the insurgents firing a bit wildly, so I don't think it can be all blamed on our troops. Still, there's been numerous documented cases of U.S. forces showing major disrespect towards the Iraqi people and using excessive force, neither of which help our cause.
From a tactical standpoint a sniper would never risk giving away his hide position to fire on something as worthless as an ambulance. The people inside are of no use, as they are most likely wounded. Unless, the ambulance was carrying something other than the wounded, perhaps ammo, or more troops. If that was the case we have all rights to fire as that is a breach of the rules.
I agree that if the ambulances were being used as cover for the insurgents, then firing on them could be justified, but I've yet to see any evidence for that. All the reports I've read imply that our troops were just interested in locking down the city and making sure no one was moving around. I don't know. I'll try and find more information, but the fog of war makes finding this level of detail difficult.
[i]
I don't think we really need to be worrying about an exit strategy per se. Stability and a legitimate government should be our primary concerns. Once we have those in place, then the exit will be rather simple. So, if you want to consider that an exit strategy, then I suppose you can, but I don't think that's what you meant by that (correct me if I'm wrong).[/i]
Well, Senator Byrd recently wrote an Op-ed on how pathetic a failure our efforts at building an Iraqi police force have been (read it in German yesterday, can't find a link). Anyway, it's just absurd how long it is taking to establish a real Iraqi authority that Iraqis can know, fear, and perhaps respect. After all, the current fighting is ultimately motivated by the knowledge that sooner or later Americans will leave, but they'll be stuck with their tyrants. Our task should be to put an Iraqi face on the new authority ASAP.
And then we should get out. As William Greider puts it recently...
"Tell me how this ends?" an American field commander asked a battlefield reporter. I will tell him how it ought to end: Declare victory and get out. Withdraw now, not later, as responsibly as this can be arranged. That wise formulation was first proposed during the bloodiest Vietnam years by the late Senator George Aiken, a Vermont Republican. Neither LBJ nor Nixon had the courage to listen."
As for imperialism, I think I'm going to put up a new post on this.
[i] Umm... do you really think that's the sort of debate most people would even be interested in having even if they were capable of understanding it? I don't mean to say that most people are too stupid to understand, but that the average American is unlikely to be interested in learning the finer points of foreign policy or thinking critically about it, both prerequisites to that sort of debate.[/i]
All we need is a debate on America's role in the world. I believe that the majority Americans are out of tune with the neocon view of the world and are essentially being manipulated by lies. By nature, I think most Americans are relatively isolationist and think legalistically rather than ideologically--the neocons see this as an admirable, but critical weakness and thus believe noble lies are necessary. Actually, the neocons are a bunch of inept fools who played to much Risk as college students. Kerry should press the GOP on this, as long as he doesn't weaken himself politically.
Well, Senator Byrd recently wrote an Op-ed on how pathetic a failure our efforts at building an Iraqi police force have been (read it in German yesterday, can't find a link). Anyway, it's just absurd how long it is taking to establish a real Iraqi authority that Iraqis can know, fear, and perhaps respect. After all, the current fighting is ultimately motivated by the knowledge that sooner or later Americans will leave, but they'll be stuck with their tyrants. Our task should be to put an Iraqi face on the new authority ASAP.
And then we should get out.
I don't see that as being substantially different than what I wrote really. Get things stable, then get out. That's not really what I consider an exit strategy though. The term implies that our goal is simply to leave, not succeed first. If we can stabilize the country and get a legitimate government in place, then our exit will be greatly simplified. If not, then it'll just be abandoning Iraq because of domestic political pressure.