Paul Krugman: A Hostage Situation

Paul Krugman explains why "Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty":

A Hostage Situation, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times [Update: full column]: There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met.

If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job...

But this isn’t a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn’t really trying to win the argument on the merits. He’s just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.

What’s at stake ... is the latest Iraq “supplemental.” Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: “Whoops! Whaddya know, we’re running out of money. Give us another $87 billion.” ...

What I haven’t seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm’s way without first ensuring that they’ll have the necessary resources.

As long as a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration’s requests, you could say that this wasn’t a real problem, ... just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Mr. Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war — and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it’s an act of hostage-taking.

Actually, it’s even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill ... won’t even set a hard deadline for withdrawal..., only an “advisory,” nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same — and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.

The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said ... in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”

So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush’s threats? ... Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.

The fact is that Mr. Bush’s refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security. Thanks to the demands of the Iraq war, we’re already a superpower without a strategic reserve, unable to respond to crises that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And more and more military experts warn that repeated deployments in Iraq — now extended to 15 months — are breaking the back of our volunteer military.

If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months — 21 months! — Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.

_________________________
Previous (4/20) column: Paul Krugman: The Plot Against Medicare
Next (4/27) column: Paul Krugman: Gilded Once More

Comments

[Ken]

What I haven’t seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops,

And the Democrats' inability to communicate this point to the public. They could have a strong point here, but they don't know how to put it together.

[Bruce Wilder]

Ken: "the Democrats' inability to communicate"

It seems Senator Reid expressed his view in a straightforward, sound-bite-ready way. He fed it to the press as part of the "what when on when Congressional leaders met with President Bush" and in case anyone missed that, he repeated it, in no uncertain terms on the Senate floor (you have to have videotape for television or it didn't happen).

I known it was covered on CNN, though the commentary and analysis, as usual, were unprofessionally framed and staffed, leaning heavily Right -- CNN apparently has a rule against having an actual liberal on, and most of their anchors also lean Right. Kyra Phillips was criticized in the left blogosphere for her fairly harsh take on Reid's remarks.

I wouldn't confuse undoubted Democratic shortcomings in the communications department, with the handicap of having to communicate through a corporate Media, which is pretty right-wing, when it is not simply incompetent.

[Bruce Wilder]

Mark Kleiman points to this article in the N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/middleeast/22detain.html?
I urge people to read all the way to the end -- in fact skip to the third webpage or last dozen paragraphs or so.

The U.S. has done a great deal to create the chaotic civil war by systematically applying completely inadequate resources to the tasks. I wish I could think of some metaphor, which make clear the ill-wisdom of failing to allocate sufficient resources to accomplishing something.

This article does not supply the metaphor, but it does supply some of the simple, vivid detail, which, maybe, makes clear the insanity of what the U.S. has been doing in Iraq, going on five years.

The U.S. has created this awful situation, and we do not have the resources available to make it right. We are not accomplishing anything good. We need to get out. Ships, buses, trains, planes. Get out.

[ilsm]

You cannot fight ideas nor change a culture with bullets.

In fact, the US likely cannot achieve any cultural change in the Islamist world in any way. Especially, when we call them "Islamicist radicals".

It was never a matter of resources, it is a matter of secular sociology which we have no way of understanding.

Anyone, espousing some success in this occupation is drinking the kool aid.

We have kicked Hmupty Dumpty off the wall and our horse and men have no way to put it back together.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/opinion/23krugman.html

April 23, 2007

A Hostage Situation
By PAUL KRUGMAN

So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush's threats?

Everyone talks about the political risks of confrontation, recalling the backlash when Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995. But there's a big difference between trying to force a fairly popular president to accept deep cuts in Medicare — which is what the 1995 confrontation was about — and trying to get a deeply unpopular, distrusted president to set some limits on an immensely unpopular war....

Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty....

[real person from the real world]

I think all the talk about WMD and Irag sponsoring terrorists, was a cover for a gambit, abetted by Iraqi political exiles who told Bush what he wanted to hear for their own ends. Wolfowitz et al, were looking for a "Tipping Point." A quick war, kick bad ol Sadam out, and the grateful Iragis would greet our GIs with flowers, and democracy would finally flower in a Mideastern country.

Well, now we have a mess. What to do. Are we worse off leaving the Iraqis to blow each other up and maybe put in someone as bad or worse than Sadam, or trying to settle things down killing lots of our own men and pouring money into it for years to come, with no guarantee of success in the end anyway.

Frankly, the Iraqi mess could not have come at a worse time for the global and US economy. We have an aging population, medical care costs are skyrocketing, and incomes are polarizing, while conservatarian assholes complain of paying for smokers and obese people who 'didn't take care of themselves,' and how we have to "ration" even though almost all costs are advertising/marketin based or based on keeping the Insurance Industry happy, NOT based on actual costs.

Frankly, I say pull our people out, let the Iraqis sort their differences out themselves, and lets work on our own problems.

[anne]

Already this morning, public radio is reporting on what is suddenly taken as a fierce deficit for Medicare that has to be acted on though, of course, politics will as always make acting difficult. Not a hint of context that Paul Krugman has been supplying of why Medicare is suddenly a budget problem or if it really is a budget problem and how-so. But then in 1995, Newt Gingrich was trying to force cuts in Medicare and here we are again but with the war in and occupation of Iraq to muddy the politics.

[Chuck Garner]

I suspect that if the Dems had been put in charge of restoring electricity, of cleaning up the mess and putting the Iraq government back on its feet, it would've been done by now; same with New Orleans, but you don't put people in charge whose ideology prohibits our government from providing disaster relief. This is the complete opposite of the principles of FDR's New Deal, and that's why it can't work. The Repubs think the purpose of government is to steal everything that isn't nailed down, including oil, rights, you name it, while those do-gooder Dems think that government exists to help, not harm, the people it serves.

[Secretary]

The link given by Bruce Wilder, above, is truncated and does not work. The correct link is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/middleeast/22detain.html?hp=&pagewanted=print"

[anne]

Links actually work if we simply copy the entire line, even though part of the line is hidden. Copy the line and past, and the whole link is there.

[anne]

"Past" is really really "paste."

[maria]

If the Democrats really wanted to stop the war they could simply say that the present funds are to be used to bring the troops home and nothing else. If they are not adequate, they could appropriate a bit more to be used ONLY to that end. But they don't have the guts to go through with this. You can't get anywhere with Bush without ultimatums. Ultimata that are enforced! Hardball, not the softball that seems the only thing the Democrats are good at.

[Bruce Wilder]

Thank you, Secretary, for the corrected link. Don't know what happened.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/world/middleeast/22detain.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
See, I can do it.

[donna]

Republicans think the purpose of EVERYTHING is to steal what isn't nailed down. Wars, government, business - it's all a big game of "how do I get mine" to them.

[Bruce Webb]

"And the Democrats' inability to communicate this point to the public."

Well I am not sure that is true at all. Maybe it is just in the water or something but all the polling shows the public in strong support of the Democratic position of funding with deadlines, somehow or other, with or without CNN, the message is getting out.

What Reid did was to express publically what everyone knew but until now no one was willing to say. Pulling out is to admit that we lost the war, at least if you define the war in terms of the desired outcomes of the Neo-Cons.

The United States as a whole, left and right, would agree that an Iraq without Saddam and an Iraqi democracy was a desired outcome. The difference is that the right not only wanted that in the worst possible way, but had a whole other list of desired outcomes.

Well the right brought us an Iraq without Saddam and an Iraq with a democracy of sorts. And indeed did bring us both in the worst possible way. The outcome in no remote, possible way justified all of the death on either side. I am upset about the money wasted and stolen, but in the end it is all about the human lives.

What will happen if the US pulls out? Will violence escalate or will absent the aggravations of having Americans running a puppet government and indiscrimately killing will Iraqis come to some accomodation. Well the truth is that we don't know and God knows we are not going to be listening to the Peter Beinarts of this world to deliver the answers because basically the 'experts' for the most part have been dead wrong on every judgement they have made to date.

Clearly whatever the outcome in Iraq, America lost this war. As a country we will be leaving Iraq far weaker internationally and militarily than we were in 2003. It is not so clear that the consequences for Iraq will continue to be so dire. I think it is quite possible that left to themselves Iraqis can come to a settlement that recognizes that the country is a Shi'ia fundamentalist led, Iranian friendly state with limited power sharing with its Sunni and Kurdish minorities. While this outcome is the embodiment of the Neo-Con nightmare, being the exact reversal of what their project was designed to deliver, i.e. an American friendly, Israeli recognizing, Sunni Chalabi leading puppet state with plenty of American military bases, it is not in itself a bad outcome for anyone who doesn't have power-mad dreams of creating a New American Century.

That is just because we lost the war doesn't mean we have irretrievably lost the peace. Who knows? And frankly our chances would have been a lot better if we had just done this in 2004, every month we have stayed since has just made the situation worse, made the possibility that ten years from now we will be able to look at Iraq and see a stable country ever that much less, but don't let the Right guilt trip you no matter what happens after the exit. This is Bush's war, it is going worse and worse, we are just trying to pull the plug.

[kharris]

"WASHINGTON (AP)--Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday…."

[anne]

No; Bruce your link was fine, that it is partially hidden is no problem. Simply copy the line and paste and all is well with any of the links.

[James Killus]

Whatever the Democrats do, Maria, they do not have the votes to override a veto. So this is still a Republican war, and should be hung around their necks like an albatross.

Ann said it best, actually, although possibly unintenionally (still, the unconscious mind has its own wisdom). The past is paste, a glue trap for the insects and small rodent brains who have somehow gained power and who would rather see the country in ruin than relinquish a shred of it.

[Duder]

Amid all of this hostage talk, let's remember Paris Hilton. Her taxes are way too high. Someone should mention that.

[MMartin]

I am just wondering where Paul and many others will stand when we have pulled out and the next major attack on American soil that takes hundreds if not thousands of American lives which will certainly occur. Some will certanly point their fingers at President Bush saying he was a weak President incapable of aquiring the necessary funds to keep this war off of American soil or even blame the twin towers disaster on him, after all everyone else doesn't mean to be bad its our fault that they are really bad... America why are we so blind? My pity and prayers are extended to all of you who believe that by leaving Iraq our troubles are over.. that will be just a new beginning for those who wish to distory our counrty and way of life.

[Duder]

I am just wondering where Paul and many others will stand when we have pulled out and the next major attack on American soil that takes hundreds if not thousands of American lives which will certainly occur.

I know, and after Saddam Hussein and Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

I can't speak for Kruggs, but I'm in favor of a "Read the Memo, Heed the Memo" policy. You know, like if you get a memo that's titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.", you read that sucker and act on it. Delay the fishing trip if need be. But that's just me.

[Bruce Wilder]

Ken: "the Democrats' inability to communicate"

Me: "It seems Senator Reid expressed his view in a straightforward, sound-bite-ready way."

I woke up this morning, thinking I should revise and extend my remarks.

Senator Reid's rhetoric was mangled in one particular way, and his speech was attacked by Kyra Phillips at CNN, among others, in one particular way. Both reflect the state of the country's division. Reid, the cautious politician, is attempting to dance around the problem. Kyra Phillips, Republican tool, is being used to exploit it.

The country is agreed, by various margins ranging around two-to-one, that things have not gone well in Iraq, are not going well, and, on the present course, are not likely to go better in the near future. Duh.

On the subject of whether the U.S. can or could "win", however, the division remains about 45-45.

This division makes the simple message, "We've lost, let's get out" politically dangerous. It means that the Republican Plan "B" -- good, ol' stab-in-the-back, the Democrats "lost Iraq" because they showed the enemy that the American people (or at least the fifth columnist, dirty hippie types) lacked the steely resolve of W -- still have political potency. Something close to a voting majority is still ready, in their minds, to believe that Iraq was "winnable".

The Democrats still have ahead of them, the daunting task of reaching a significant fraction of Americans, who still think that America "could" win the War in Iraq, whether by change in plan or slim chance or steely resolve or getting tough.

Maria thinks the Democrats are cowards afraid of "hardball" politics; I think they are practical politicians, most of them, far too cynical to be the least interested in political suicide for any cause.

A significant fraction of Republicans -- not just Democrats and independents -- are going to have to be brought around to the view that Bush is an incompetent danger to himself and others. He is, in fact, an incompetent danger to himself and others, but this is still difficult, not just because the corporate, right-wing Media is a finely tuned Republican propaganda machine polluting our national discourse, but also because believing that the President is incompetent and ill-willed is almost as difficult for some people as believing that their own parents were sometimes untrustworthy and incompetent in their conduct of family life.

islm has a good point about what was achieveable in Iraq. But, this is no time to be applying Occam's razor to an analysis of what went wrong. It has ALL gone wrong. Bush did not make a single mistake; he made a whole series of huge, catastrophic, compounding mistakes. "And" is a key word in interpreting Bush's failure. It is a key word, because it is a necessary word for building the case against believing anything Bush says, or trusting him to be able to do anything honestly for the country's good.

Bush did not just make a single mistake in Iraq. The case for war was fraudulent. The decision to go to war was mistaken. And, the planning for and conduct of the occupation and reconstruction was so corrupt and incompetent as to exclude any good outcome -- not just inadequate to whatever the goal might have been, but so fubar as to make certain that the outcome for the U.S. and Iraq would be unfavorable.

Ultimately, the Democrats will have to build the case that Bush does not have country's welfare at heart. Ken was right. The Democrats have to manage the political theatrics of the struggle over appropriations and withdrawal timetables in such a way as to drive home Bush's fundamental disregard for the welfare of the troops, and, by extension, the country.

Right now, Reid is having to stumble over the willingness of half the country (and probably more than half in his home state) to believe that the U.S. "could" still "win" something, somehow in Iraq.

And, once the U.S. is "out" the Democrats should be prepared (but won't be) for interpreting the aftermath.

The Kurds, who have been our only real allies, will probably be crushed by a cynical alliance of Arab Iraqis, Turkey and Iran, unmatched since the 18th century partition of Poland. If Bush accedes to withdrawal, he will almost certainly make things as bad as possible for the Kurds. But, the Republicans will still blame the Democrats.

I'm not encouraged by the willingness of pundits and politicians to go along with the whole Iran-as-evil narrative. I have no particular brief for Iran, but a few moments of thought ought to lead to the realization that establishing a stable equilibrium balance of power and influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia is the key to the "aftermath" (except as regards the friendless Kurds). It is also the key to Iranian cooperation on the nuclear issue -- Saudi Arabia and Iran will together agree to forego the bomb, because it is in their mutual interest; no other point of leverage -- certainly not European sanctions -- is nearly as important. (Some concessions or guarantees on the nuclear issue from Israel and Pakistan and India would also be helpful in patching non-proliferation in south Asia back together; the fact that Bush has been moving all three of those countries in the opposite direction ought to give someone an opening to expose the Bush Administration's pro-proliferation policy for what it is.)

If you have to choose between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and you have the interests of the Bush family at heart, you will choose Saudi Arabia, and use right-wing nuts at AIPAC to garner support for your irresponsible choice. But, if you care most about the interests of the United States, you will lean toward Iran.

Iran is, by far, the more powerful, stable and nearly democratic State in the region. An alliance is unlikely, but detente would be in our mutual interests. Saudi Arabia, one of the most despotic, reactionary regimes on the planet, and an incubator and sponsor of violent anti-Western Islamism, is on the verge of implosion. Hello!?

[Gerard MacDonell]

Why is the best journalist in America a part timer?

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

MMartin: You've sold me...! Yes let's just stay in Iraq, we must come out VICTORIOUS, with HONOR. I'm so scared... Let's just keep sending our boys and girls to get killed and wounded. Let's just keep sending fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, daughters, sons, friends and lovers to die for us, that is if it is us they are dying for. They are being killed by Sunni and Shia and Taliban but we are the ones that are sending them to be killed. How long will we send them to die? How many will we send to die? What is the mission they are dying for? When will their mission be accomplished and what will be the sum of the casualties? Sounds to me like you don't care. Sounds to me like you have bought into this whole macho cowboy thing, or the warm and fuzzy democratize the The Middle East thing.

Please define the outcome that you think that we should have in Iraq, in the Middle East, that will make you feel so safe and that will sustain our "way of life" and while you're at it define this "way of life" that you think is so precious and so exclusive to ALL AMERICANS, BLACK, HISPANIC AND WHITE, STRAIGHT AND GAY, MARRIED AND SINGLE, RICH AND POOR, YOUNG AND OLD. Tell me, what is this way of life. What ever it was, and it once was, if only in our hearts, if only an abstraction, if only a promise, if only a hope, it's been taken from us and not by the terrorists, but by those who swore an oath to uphold and defend it.

My best regards,

Econolicious

says...

MMartin:

500 or 1000 dead civilians is just a slow day in Iraq.

I have no doubt that eventually, there will be more terrorism. The question is, will we again panic and hand our freedom, our treasure, and the lives of our fighting men to a bunch of chest-thumping con men, bullies, and fools who may well have been partially complicit and _absolutely_ misled us about who was responsible, for their own ends.

[RP]

Dealing with what we now face is fairly simple, if unconventional:

1) Leave and let the civil war play itself out.
2) Promise, as we leave, that if a Taliban or al-Qaeda (or non-Iraqi
for that matter) government arises from a civil war, that we will be back just long
enough to depose it and then we'll go to Step 1 again.
3) Use the money we now spend on the war to send in food/medicine for
some finite period of time. (We broke it, we bought it)

Call it the "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" Plan.
Well...don't just sit there....get going....

[maria]

"Whatever the Democrats do, Maria, they do not have the votes to override a veto."

Would Bush veto a bill funding the war that had conditions in it? If he did, the onus would be on him. Democrats are afraid to play chicken with him. I think they should. No more money at all unless it is spent withdrawing the troops. If he vetoes it, then no money at all. He'd cave.

[maria]

I cannot think of any previous situation in which a nation loses a war, but keeps on fighting it. Vietnam perhaps, but Nixon was withdrawing troops all the while he was pretending to "negotiate" with the North. Or perhaps the Portuguese in Africa under Salazar? (The absurdity of that finally brought the New State tumbling down.) If anyone can think of a clear precedent for the US in Iraq, I'd be happy to know of it.

[Expensive Plan]

The Sunnis ruled Iraq for centuries. Bush changed this, and the Sunnis resisted with force. The Shia were targeted by the Sunnis as part of the Sunni bid to recapture control of Iraq. The Shia now hate the Sunnis for killing Shia family/friends. The Shia and Kurds control the new gov, and want to throw all Sunnis out of Iraq. Bush does not want them to, so he has US troops fighting both Sunni bombers terrorizing Shia, and Shia death squads counter terrorizing Sunnis.

On top of this, Bush dismissed the entire Iraqi police force, and told our troops to act as a national police force until a new Iraqi police force can be fully trained. This is not a military mission. Our troops have no training as police. They were not taught how to take fingerprints, or preserve DNA evidence. They don't even speak the local language, and thus have no real hope of finding vandals, thieves, and such.

The politicians have followed a very expensive strategy in Iraq, that will take a very long time to achieve the stated goals.

[Expensive Plan]

Wars cannot be fought by committee. That is the reason the President alone has the title commander in chief. Congress is limited to declaring war. Once war is declared, the President decides how to fight it, and Congress decides how lavishly to fund it. What is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is who makes peace. If peace is made by formal treaty, the Pres decides whether to sign the treaty, and the Senate then decides whether to ratify it. The Pres can order the troops to stay in the absence of a formal peace treaty, and the Pres has to initiate the treaty process.

To change war strategy, a new commander in chief would be needed. To end the war now, a recall election could be held. Congress could impeach the President, and the Senate could then remove him. A Constitutional Amendment could be enacted. Otherwise, the troops will stay until Bush orders them out, or the next President does so.

Even if Congress stops paying the troops, the Pres can order them to stay without pay. It would be political suicide for Congress to stop sending bullets to the troops to defend themselves. Americans would never forgive the Democratic party if the troops ran low on bullets, and something really bad happened to them. Thus Paul's hostage analogy.

[Noni Mausa]

MMartin: "I am just wondering where Paul and many others will stand when we have pulled out and the next major attack on American soil that takes hundreds if not thousands of American lives which will certainly occur..."

The one circumstance doesn't follow the other.

Yes, when attacked a nation should act effectively to prevent further attacks and punish the attackers. But Bush has not acted effectively. The Taliban in Afghanistan are retooling, Iraq is impossible (and wasn't involved in the first place) and the US is now deeply poor in dollars and in armed forces. Bush has probably crippled the armed forces for a decade or two, till a new generation of citizens arise who weren't taught that enlistment (even in the National Guard!) has no limits in time or space, despite what might be written on the enlistment papers.

If this was a Faulkner tragedy, Bush would be the alcoholic paterfamilias who responds to the murder of one of his children by drunkenly fighting (and losing to) the murderer, fighting (and losing to) a bystander who looks like the murderer, losing his two sons and spending all the family's savings on this fight and also mortgaging the house to do so, and alienating his family to the whole township.

I cover the courts now and then and this pattern is instantly recognizable, though it's occuring on the world stage instead of a provincial circuit court.

What's the best the US can do with this mess? I'd say, impeach W, and then "discover" he is mentally unbalanced. I think you could make a case for it.

Oh, and then stop electing incompetents.

Noni

[bob mcmanus]

"I cannot think of any previous situation in which a nation loses a war, but keeps on fighting it."

Germany and Russia in WWI I think are the most relevant examples.

[James Killus]

Would Bush veto a bill funding the war that had conditions in it? If he did, the onus would be on him. Democrats are afraid to play chicken with him. I think they should. No more money at all unless it is spent withdrawing the troops. If he vetoes it, then no money at all. He'd cave.

Maria, it is always dangerous to base a plan on assumptions about the behavior of someone else. That is, in fact, the central problem with the idea of "winning" in Iraq. The Iraqis are required to tug their forelocks and say, "Thank you ever so much, kind sirs. You are goodness itself." Then they give us all their oil. That's "winning."

Your assumption is nowhere near that bad, but it does, nevertheless, assume something other than lunacy from a lunatic. In any case, any money whatsoever that is actually appropriated will simply be spent by Bush however he wishes to spend it. He will issue a signing statement then do as he pleases. And the number of votes to convict after impeachment are the same as the votes needed to override a veto.

Bush does not consider himself to be bound by law. I doubt he will "cave" until the cell doors slam shut.

[maria]

Well if Bush were to try to spend money appropriated for a withdrawal to continue to fight, he should be promptly impeached. He might well not be convicted, but I am quite certain he would not want to provoke an impeachment. It is this fear of him that emasculates the Democrats. If you are always afraid of your opponent he pretty much has you on the run. As Bush has the Democrats.

[James Killus]

Impeachment without the threat of conviction is worse than useless. It distracts and distorts. Better to systematically strip away all the crooks who serve the felon-in-chief. This also has its dangers, as he becomes more lunatic with each passing day, and there are still those who have sworn to serve him, or at least the office that he occupies.

There are always choices; they may not be good choices, but there are choices nonetheless.

[Oupoot]

I thought the official war ended in 2003/4 with total victory over the Iraqi army under Saddam. So there is no need for a peace treaty. Anyway, for a peace treaty one needs an opponent - who will sign the peace treaty on behalf of the insurgents?

When I spoke to a US State dept official in 2004 when she visited South Africa, we discussed pulling out vs staying put. There were no winners in either situation, only losers. The US have to decide the least bad of the two possible outcomes. It should be evaluated against US interest, not Iraqi or US-Iraqi interest. Of what possible interest is it for the US to stay put in Iraq? They have already lost the respect of the rest of the world, which already know they cannot win the peace. Besides, the longer the US stays in Iraq, the better for terrorism and the worse for the US in the medium to long term.

It would also make things a lot easier for the Iraqi govt, as they will have to make choices that is best for them/Iraq, not the US in Iraq. They can enter into negotiations / peace treaty with insurgents. Though hostilities will probably continue for some time, the long term impact (lives lost, infrastructure damaged, social capital destroyed, etc) will be so much less.

[anne]

There were 9 Americans and 1 Britain killed in Iraq on Monday. Needless, tragic, lunacy. We must leave Iraq immediately.

[maria]

Alarmist? I think not:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

[maria]

A bit about Naomi Wolf who wrote the previous essay to which I linked:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/wolf.html

[anne]

Remembrance:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/15/home/halberstam-best.html

November 12, 1972

How We Got Into the Messiest War In Our History
By VICTOR S. NAVASKY

THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST
By David Halberstam.

The Best and the Brightest," Pulitzer Prize winner David Halberstam's latest, most important and impressive book, sets out to discover why America got involved in the worst and messiest war in our history. "What was it about the men, their attitudes, the country, its institutions and above all the era which had allowed this tragedy to take place?" They were, after all, "the best and the brightest," so why did it happen?

It happened, Halberstam concludes, because, "they had, for all their brilliance and hubris and sense of themselves, been unwilling to look and learn from the past." They ignored Hanoi history and misunderstood Munich history. "And they had been swept forward by their belief in the importance of anti-Communism (and the dangers of not paying sufficient homage to it)." The Age of the Pentagon Papers is, in reality, the Age of the Pumpkin Papers.

It is difficult to argue with Halberstam's reasonable, compelling and persuasively presented thesis. The rhetoric is occasionally overblown, but he is right, they were "swept forward" by the sense of power and glory, omnipotence and omniscience of America in this century. They were "America" and they did want to be defined as "being strong and tough; but strength and toughness and courage were exterior qualities which would be demonstrated by going to a clean and hopefully antiseptic war with a small nation, rather than the interior more lonely kind of strength and courage of telling the truth to America and perhaps incurring a good deal of domestic political risk."

Moreover, Halberstam is able to bring his case alive through the artful use of warehouses of insider anecdotes, vignettes and detail. What better symbol of the illusion of an antiseptic war than Gen. William Westmoreland breakfasting in his underwear "in order to keep his fatigues pressed?" What more vivid way to convey the cold-war assumptions ingrained in L.B.J. than to report that the first thing that raced through his mind as the shots were fired that November day in Dallas was "that the Communists had done it?" How more dramatically to capture the stultifying atmosphere of our embassy in Saigon than to show Ambassador Frederick E. Nolting Jr., replacing a portrait of Thomas Jefferson with one of George Washington, in anticipation of a TV interview, because Jefferson was too controversial? ...

[maria]

Of course the road to war in Vietnam was rather different from that to Iraq. Vietnam took place in the context of the Cold War when the US had exaggerated fear of Communist takeovers around the world. One might say it had a smidgen of a rationale behind it, although the assessment about the danger was way off. In contrast, there was never any rationale at all for Iraq, other than perhaps Israel's wish that the only independent Arab state in its vicinity be crushed, and that was not a meaningful American rationale. The involvement in Iraq was based on cynical, conscious lies that its proponents knew to be lies. On the other hand, both were a continuing manifestation of Western imperialism, and both were and are an attempt to maintain that imperialism when it should have been discarded completely, as the West pretended it had, after WWII.

[maria]

Would like to put this in somewhere. Our discussions of withdrawing the troops from Iraq have been leaving out an important factor, and that is the existence of over 100,000 mercenaries or contract troops the US employs in Iraq. There is a book out about them called Blackwater (the name of the contracting firm) that has been reviewed on TV several times (kudos to the media that have done this). It was pointed out that the Democrat demand for troop withdrawal said nothing at all about withdrawal of the mercenaries. So Bush could withdraw all the troops and still have over 100,000 mercenary soldiers still in Iraq. I suspect this factor has been largely overlooked.

[maria]

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page D01

There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.

[maria]

One might point out that the Iraq, unlike Vietnam, is a war of mercenaries. All the troops there are there for money. Some of the US professionals may profess to be motivated by "patriotism" but in essence this is an Ancien Regime type war, fought by professional soldiers for pay. And like the wars of the Ancien Regime, it is being conducted not for some national good or in response to a popular motivation, but for the schemes of the tiny group at the pinnacle of the power pyramid. Of course in the beginning the war was "sold" as necessary for the good of the nation and its security, but as this lie has worn off, so has support for the war. And the people who keep it going know it is deeply unpopular and would cause a rebellion of vast scope if they ever tried to draft young men to fight it.

[anne]

Yes; this is for us another kind of war and occupation entirely.

[calmo]

maria, I think this might be an unfortunate conflation of "contractors" and "troops"All the troops there are there for money.But I think the Dem who suggested (admitted later it was a grandstand to draw attention to the fact that Michael Moore made famous: elected representatives find other work for their families) instituting a draft to fight this war had it right: the representatives do not represent the families who are doing the fighting...or a lot of other more productive work in the country for that matter.

So the key is this selling:
Of course in the beginning the war was "sold" as necessary for the good of the nation and its security, but as this lie has worn off, so has support for the war. and the media's weight in sustaining this sale despite polls, despite continuing evidence of incompetence among top officials in this administration, despite an economy that seems to me to be edging nearer to a precipice that may have major social ramifications as excuses to employ even further authoritarian measures are exercised.

[Bruce Wilder]

Expensive Plan: "Even if Congress stops paying the troops, the Pres can order them to stay without pay."

No, he can't. And, even if he did order a volunteer Army to serve without pay, it would be an illegal and invalid order, which they could not obey.

[maria]

Calmo: well the contractors (mercenaries) are there for the money and so are the troops. The troops may have joined up, for the money, before the war, but they were not drafted. They are a paid army. So everyone who is fighting there is in effect a mercenary. Some may have gotten put there by surprise, and others with their eyes open, but they are all paid. None of them, to my knowledge, are serving for nothing, that is due to a draft.

[Expensive Plan]

Bruce, in the 90s, gov funding shut down for a short period due to conflict between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton over the budget. Non essential gov employees were told to stay home. Essential employees were told to report to work even though Congress had not authorized any pay for them. The military, FBI and such reported for work as ordered.

Obviously, this situation could not go on forever, but Congress would not want to compromise the nation's future ability to defend itself by permanently denying pay. The soldiers would eventually get back pay for their service, and everyone knows it.

[Dirk van Dijk]

Between vetoing funds for the troops in the field and the Walter Reed Fiasco, it is abundantly clear that Bush does not give a damm about the troops. He is a lil boy who got a neet new toy, the US Armed Forces which he just had to take out to play with, but refused to use properly and promptly broke it. The fact that breaking it caused thousands of brave young US men and women, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's to die is not a concern to him. He is upset that his toy is broken and is throwing a temper tantrum because Congress wants to supervise how he plays with it if they buy him a new one. Bush needs his pants pulled down and his butt turned bright red, preferably on National TV.

[STS]

Anybody ready for a "War Tax" yet?

The current Democratic strategy is traditional tug-of-war. We need to use a flanking strategy ... go around behind Bush's lines and show what an empty tent his base really is. They support him because he doesn't ask them for anything. The less he asks for (in taxes), the more they support him. Make Bush ask his base for the money to fund the war -- or to be more precise -- make Bush explain why he refuses to ask any financial sacrifice of his base while sending the SAME troops to Iraq for their third, fourth, umpteenth? tour.

It ought to be unconstitutional to start a war without making at least a down payment on paying for it. Given that we don't draft people anymore, we need a financial consequence for the decision to make war. We need a check on political opportunism like Rove's strategy to use "regime change in Iraq" as the centerpiece of the Republican campaign.

[Isabel]

Talking about lip service, here is an interesting analysis about who is interested in American troops in Iraq:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2064703,00.html

[Expensive Plan]

Pre war, Saddam and Al Qaeda were mortal enemies, so Iraq really did not need to be invaded in the first place.

Once invaded, Al Qaeda did send a lot of terrorists to Iraq to fight the Americans. The terrorists were slaughtered in large numbers. However, their bombing made the Shia hate the Sunnis who sheltered the terrorists. If the US left today, the Shia/Kurd dominated gov would finish ejecting most Sunnis from Iraq (millions have already fled). None of the surrounding countries want them, so they would likely become another displaced people like the Palestinian Arabs.

Bush fears Sunni refugee camps would become a potential breeding camp for terrorists. This is the justification for using US troops to prevent the Shia/Kurd gov from ejecting the Sunni. The Shia are not happy living next to Sunni who keep bombing them.

Most of the Sunni tribes are now making an attempt to reign in the terrorists, because they realize if they don't they will be ejected by the Shia when the Americans leave.

A powerful group of Sunni refuse to stop fighting though. Saddam's former enforcers, who terrorized the Shia while Saddam ruled. They can't make peace, because the Shia will go after them regardless. They fight on, and terrorize fellow Sunni who try to stop them, because think their victims' families will never stop hunting them. They might be right.

[maria]

I said it before and I'll say it again and I defy anyone to prove me wrong: the Democrats are faking any move to withdraw from Iraq. Nothing they are doing will accomplish that at all. Their "resolutions" are "non-binding"; in other words they are fakes. They are gutless cowards who don't have the courage to really confront the President in the only way they could: to cut off the money. And since they are without the balls to do that, they are lying to the US public about their intentions. They have no sincere intention to stop the war. It will go on and on until there is a new President. And sad to say, I would not be surprised if a Democrat President comes to office that reasons will be found to stay in Iraq. The Democrats are worthless on this issue and fakers and liars. They won't get us out of Iraq. Forget it. Is that blunt enough?

[anne]

I can understand the disappointment, but it is not clear to me what more the Democrats can do than this advisory resolution that will still be vetoed. Some would go further, but the votes are not there for more. I understand, though.

[anne]

No; I am wrong, the New York Times is sayting the bill the Democrats have just passed in the House and apparently to be passed in the Senate "requires" that troops begin to be withdrawn by October 1.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/washington/26cong.html

April 26, 2007

House Passes Bill Requiring an Iraq Pullout
By CARL HULSE and JEFF ZELENY

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday narrowly approved a $124 billion war spending bill that would require American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq by Oct. 1, setting the stage for the first veto fight between President Bush and majority Democrats.

Only hours after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, told lawmakers that he needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of a troop buildup there, the House voted 218 to 208 to pass a measure that sought the removal of most combat forces by next spring. Mr. Bush has said unequivocally and repeatedly that he will veto it....

[anne]

Democrats appear to be working sincerely and hard to bring American soldiers from Iraq. I am grateful, though saddened, for I well know the votes are not there to override a certain veto by the President. I can understand disappointment, however.

[maria]

You will excuse me if I repeat that the bill is a fake, is political posturing. To wit:

"The huge bill would fund the war, among other things, but demand troop withdrawals begin on Oct. 1 or sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks. The bill sets a nonbinding goal of completing the troop pullout by April 1, 2008, allowing for forces conducting certain noncombat missions, such as attacking terrorist networks or training Iraqi forces, to remain."

My comment: It continues to "fund the war." It demands withdrawals only IF "the Iraq government does not meet certain benchmarks"; and the "complete" pullout is "nonbinding". Also other forces can remain, including all contractors or mercenaries. I call it a sham. The Democrats could FORCE a pullout by refusing to "fund the war" any longer. They don't have the guts to do this. They are bamboozled by Bush. He has them on the run. Don't kid yourself about the Democrats. They are weaklings. And will pay for it down the road.

[maria]

After the expose by Bill Moyers of the New York Times' eager roll in selling this war to the public, its credibility is in shreds. I would no longer believe anything I read in the New York Times unless I found clear corroboration elsewhere. The paper is not to be trusted. Not at all.

[anne]

No; the Democrats are doing what they were elected to do and trying to end the occupation of Iraq and I am pleased with the efforts and only wishing more.

The New York Times is a superb newspaper, the finest of newspapers, and while criticism of such an institution is always in order and can help the paper improve, I am always grateful for the Times.

[maria]

I beg to disagree. The Times beat the drums of war incessantly in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. (Did you watch Bill Moyers on PBS last night?). I can never regard that as a "superb" newspaper. The Democrats are play acting; they have ONE way to end the war and they are too "chicken" to use it. But they will pay a dear price for prevaricating. If this war is still hanging around our neck by 2009 and a Democrat is elected, the whole bloody mess will be in his or her lap and it will make that administration a misery. Don't forget that Nixon inherited a war and it did him in.

[anne]

No; Nixon accepted Vietnam with even more of a cold war mind set than Lyndon Johnson and dramatically and tragically expanded operations through and beyond Vietnam while at the same time doing all that could be done to limit knowledge of what was happening in Vietnam and Cambodia and to limit dissent at home.

[anne]

Now, the New York Times should be severely blamed for faulty or deceptive reporting before the war in Iraq though increasingly less so but still blamed during the occupation of Iraq. Criticize the Times when deserved and we can help make the paper better.

Democrats must make continual efforts to explain the amoral futility of the occupation and to bring it to an end. I believe a failure to work against the occupation, even more than support for the needless war, will defeat Hillary Clinton, and she is already defeated forever for me. Other candidates must work against the occupation and promise to leave Iraq if elected or there will be no support from me.

[anne]

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/history-bombs-over-cambodia/

February 25, 2007

Bombs Over Cambodia: New information reveals that Cambodia was bombed far more heavily than previously believed.
By Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan

In the fall of 2000, twenty-five years after the end of the war in Indochina, Bill Clinton became the first US president since Richard Nixon to visit Vietnam. While media coverage of the trip was dominated by talk of some two thousand US soldiers still classified as missing in action, a small act of great historical importance went almost unnoticed. As a humanitarian gesture, Clinton released extensive Air Force data on all American bombings of Indochina between 1964 and 1975. Recorded using a groundbreaking IBM-designed system, the database provided extensive information on sorties conducted over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Clinton's gift was intended to assist in the search for unexploded ordnance left behind during the carpet bombing of the region. Littering the countryside, often submerged under farmland, this ordnance remains a significant humanitarian concern. It has maimed and killed farmers, and rendered valuable land all but unusable. Development and demining organizations have put the Air Force data to good use over the past six years, but have done so without noting its full implications, which turn out to be staggering....

The data released by Clinton shows the total payload dropped during these years to be nearly five times greater than the generally accepted figure. To put the revised total of 2,756,941 tons into perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs during all of World War II, including the bombs that struck Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 15,000 and 20,000 tons, respectively. Cambodia may well be the most heavily bombed country in history....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Iraq-Military.html

April 26, 2007

Petraeus Eyes Long Commitment in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require ''an enormous commitment'' over time by the United States.

Speaking as the Senate debated veto-threatened legislation to start bringing home U.S. forces in October, Petraeus called the war there ''the most complex and challenging I have ever seen.''...

[Pat Kean]

Paul Krugman is the economics profession's clown. He deliberately massages information to beat his 'unique' Chomsky viewpoint of our country. The Times has a history of bringing dictators and thugs to power by its child like approach to facts called "wish thinking". Castro, Stalin, Pol Pot, and of late Chavez have all been assisted politically byTimes 'journalists' over the past 70 years who have presented a 180 degree from reality picture of what these evil men represent. In Vietnam hundreds of thousands were murdered or drowned escaping the nightmare slaughter that ensued after our withdrawl. Iran is poised to take advantage of Murpha's 'redeployment' nonsense. Our premature withdrawl coupled with the fact Iran has over a million men under arms will set the stage for a new Hilter in our time. It took Germany only six years build up its potential from equivilant of a Washington State level economy (to the entire US) to one that challenged America for global domination. Only three bad decisions by Hitler caused Germany's fate to be sealed. Admadinejad has an IQ over 150 and a ruthless resolve to destroy western civilization. From the A and H-bomb technology imported to an army of Homicde bombers Iran is poised for the big time. US Boarder Patrol data shows about 45 thousand mid east illegal aliens are coming into this country every year. It is also documented Chavez is supplying false ID's for many of these people. (Thanks to Bush not closing the boarder) This is a fall of Rome type scenario or more probable I believe a time where a Caesar or Agustus deems a clear and present danger exists and moves with enough popular support against those domestically who are aiding and abetting. Pelosi said her leadership is for the children. It is clear by the nature of the posts on this site she left out the 'by the children' part. Senator Ried claims that the war is lost is just more bull crap from a mentality that just is unable to understand, perhaps like Ali his brain was bounced a little too much by years of boxing. A little Ipos poll data shows Democrat's may have overplayed thier hands on this one: Murpha is America's most unpopular politician (21%) Reid is at 22%, and Pelosi is just under thirty. Bush is at 38 and Cheney 25. Clear evidence Americans are angry at both Republicans and Democrats. This is why Rudi (for now) is stomping all comers politically, he is leading Clinton in NY State by ten points, and of US Senators Joe Lieberman is the most popular. The vote in the House and Senate now puts the Democrats on the record the and Right will point to this as they did in Vietnam that Democrats put political power ahead of global concerns and security for America. This charge may not be fully fair given Bush's role but like a Bull Crap to a blanket it will stick and stink and bubble up a building mass of political methane that will explode come the next 9-11 that will likey be on a larger scale. A Krugman will be in the crosshairs of the blowback...

Pat Kean
BA economics
Kihei Maui Hawaii.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/opinion/l27giuliani.html

Giuliani on Terrorism

To the Editor:

“Giuliani Says a Democratic President Would Make the U.S. Less Safe”:

Rudy Giuliani, would you please stop with the “vote for us or die” rhetoric?

You recently said that if a Democrat gets elected, we will be going back to our pre-9/11 mentality on defense.

Can you explain exactly how this works, because as I recall, the Republicans were in charge on 9/11, and a lot of people died that day, including my brother-in-law, Sean Canavan, who was in the south tower on the 98th floor.

Please stop insulting our intelligence with your fear-mongering. It’s pitiful.

Republicans are good at sitting useless in a classroom for several minutes while being told that America is under attack. These same Republicans used 9/11 to sell us four years of war in the wrong country. Is that what you call being on the offense? Maybe you meant to say Republicans are offensive.

Jean Canavan
Staten Island, April 26, 2007

[Hype-Jersey]

I'm not so sure that this hasn't been political theatre. I'm a loyal democrat, but I think that the dems knew going in that bush wouldn't move on this. They appeared to put up a good fight, but in the end, they funded the troops. We knew it would turn out this way. I don't think bush cares about the troops at all. But I also think that the dems are just as worried about *looking like* they are not supporting the troops as they are worried about the troops.

[starwheel]

All of this handwringing about what the Democrats should do or what the Democrats need to do.

Dammit. What are WE doing about it?

Gas prices are hitting $4.00 a gallon and what are WE doing about it? We're not driving any less and we're still buying SUVs and trucks! By "we" I mean the American people.

The war goes on and on and the American people all go to their jobs and their kid's ball games and have their barbeques on the weekends. We can't stand Bush or this war but that as much as we're willing to sacrifice right now.

Until people are ready to take to the streets and get in the face of this administration, nothing is going to change. The best we can hope for is that the Democrats somehow keep chiseling away. But without OUR help, they're doomed to fail.

[me]

I hate SPINELESS DEMOCRATS even more than republicans.

[thepoetryman]

Here's an exit strategy for those unwilling to see the truth of Bushes ineptitude and a bungled foreign policy-

http://apoeticjustice.blogspot.com/2007/05/leave.html

[The Oracle]

I don't believe anything the Bush administration says.

Nor do I believe anything that anyone says on any of the Mainstream Mouthpieces (like Fox News) that are propaganda outlets for the worst administration in American history.

The bungling of Iraq by the Bush administration is mind-boggling.

Now, they are illegally going after Iran (and until recently hiding what they were doing from Congress), continuing their Armageddon march through the Middle East.

Bush adminstration: lying, deceitful and dangerous. Oh, and insane. Can't forget that they're all insane in the Bush administration. Heaven help our children.

[Wholly Rogue Emperor]

These insane and dangerous 'people' need to be taken out, and I'm not thinking just out of office; know what I mean?
picture rabid dogs in the school yard; oh! what to do??
it's too late for tranquilizer darts and nets ...

and I said I wouldn't let Bush rob me of my humanity a few months before the revolting 'shock and awe' spectacle!

but self-preservation inevitably kicks in after 'reasonable resolutions' are all frustrated and made 'irrelevant' ...

and it keeps getting much much worse ...

Remember the Declaration of Independence? The Bill of Rights? They were really great for so many, for so long ... We need to make them real again! And for all of us *this time*!