Crossposted at my community blog, My Left Wing
I am a far-left, anti-war Democrat with a pragmatic streak the size of a continent. If you don’t quite see how someone like me can classify herself as a political pragmatist, ask an oldtimer about my days as a Kerry Cheerleader Extraordinaire…
But even pragmatism has its varieties.
I hereby reiterate the conclusion to which I came some time after the election: The kind of “pragmatism” employed and endorsed in the words, “We must stay the course,” has ceased to be an option.
(Which is not to say that before the election I subscribed to that particular line of reasoning. I have been against this war from the beginning, and advocating for our withdrawal from Day Two.)
We, the Democrats and progressives and leftists and liberals who believe this war to be wrong, must appeal to our representatives in Congress. We must hammer them with insistent demands.
People are dying and suffering for nothing. This is no fucking chess game; this is a rock bottom issue of morality. Anyone who supported or supports this war supports murder and mayhem. And anyone who stands by and does nothing, says nothing — is also supporting death and destruction.
It is INDEFENSIBLE. No good can come of our presence in Iraq; it will simply continue as it has and eventually get worse. More people will die and suffer maiming, more children will lose their parents… and another generation in the Middle East will grow up despising the United States as a mortal enemy. And, frankly, I can’t blame them.
I, of course, have the luxury of wearing my broken heart on my sleeve, of speaking out vociferously against the war and agitating for immediate withdrawal of all coalition forces — because I am not a politician, much less up for re-election in 18 months.
Likewise, the Democrats have the dubious luxury of not having make the decision — because they do not yet, unfortunately, have the numbers to force Bush to pull us out of Iraq, let alone impeach the motherfucker, which any RATIONAL legislature would already have DONE by now.
The sensible and prudent Democrats almost all advocate, among other things, international support achieved through making the UN a full partner in “help(ing) the Iraqis build a stable, peaceful and pluralistic society.” (from John F. Kerry’s Op-Ed Piece in the Washington Post, Tuesday, April 13, 2004.) Certainly it has become the only “safe” position to take in the face of our woeful lack of influence or power in Congress.
I am thoroughly acquainted with the perilous vicissitudes of retaining what little hope for making up lost ground in 2006 we may have, of how imperiled so many Democrats already are in their re-election bids.
Some, whom I have had the displeasure to witness on various blogs, are taking every opportunity to employ the kind of vicious, counterproductive rhetoric against the deluded pragmatism displayed by these Democrats, which Ralph Nader used to such great and terrible effect against Al Gore in 2000.
Such behaviour, should it affect the mid-term races the way it affected Mr. Gore and put the election within Mr. Bush’s reach, will do nothing to further the goals of these so-called “progressives.” If the previous term is any indication of the cutthroat hubris with which this Administration will use its power to complete its goals (by now transparent to everyone at a third grade reading level)… the next four years under Bush and a Republican dominated legislature may result in a disfiguration of the world as envisioned by the likes of George Orwell and company.
But there comes a time when pragmatic caution is not only regrettable but damned immoral. This is one of those times. Every Democrat in Congress should band together and in one voice, declare the war in Iraq to have been a dreadful mistake on their part — and deliberate deception on the part of the Administration.
The onus is on these Democrats and everyone who feels in his heart as I do — that this war is folly on a tragic scale — to speak the truth as loudly and as often as possible. And since they show absolutely no signs of neither being willing to do so nor even believing that pulling out is the only possible solution — it is no longer enough on our part to merely work to ensure a net gain in 2006. It is incumbent upon every man and woman of conscience to persist in demanding of our leaders that they unravel the Gordian knot tied so tightly and recklessly by George W. Bush.
I am not delusional. The Byzantine ways of war, while utterly unfamiliar to me as a civilian, are obviously complex, and unimaginable to me.
Which is why the raising of voices, the carrying of signs, the marching en masse to declare to the leaders of the world and the peoples of the world that we must end this conflagration NOW is so vital to a (relatively) positive outcome. Delay in our support for withdrawal further delays the decision-makers’ beginning the process of withdrawal.
How much sooner would the lamentable and catastrophic Vietnam war have ended had the protests begun years earlier? We are no longer the naive population we once were, blindly and trustingly acquiescing to the patriarchal edicts of our leaders. Ill-informed as we may be collectively, we have FAR more access to the truth now than we did then. We know enough, now, to speak up when we notice a naked emperor strutting down our streets. We MUST.
How much longer, how many more people must die in service of George W. Bush’s insane folly? Must we surpass the official death toll of Vietnam before we collectively run out of snooze alarms? What will it fucking TAKE to stop this madness? It is tragic and outrageous that these words must be spoken once again: How can you ask someone to… die for a mistake?
Further conclusions?
I agree 100% — heck, 150% — with you!
But the odds of us leaving? Just about zero.
It’s not realistic because of the huge corporate/energy industry structure in play. Aside from the pollitical will of the WH to keep us there.
I meant to add that it seems that the oil and corporate elements are what makes this war different from Vietnam.
I voted “Oh, you dear naive girl…”
for precisely the reasons you mention.
Yeah … it’s a fucking bummer.
The only way we can begin to correct this is by getting back in power.
And that means majorities in Congress and a president.
We’ll have a lot of fixing to do…. from the military to intelligence to international relations to Afghanistan to Iraq, and on and on.
(The enormity of this challenge is why I get so fucking pissed off about people getting side-tracked by a single issue such as the diversionary abortion debate … as if Howard Dean would ever allow weakening of abortion laws. Jesus Christ. Let’s GET A GRIP and ELECT DEMOCRATS IN 2006 and 2008. It is OUR — and the world’s — only hope left.)
P.S. The profanity is an homage to MSO.
But we can save Roe and make sure Roberts does not take the bench…
That is a battle worth fighting. Once Roberts is on the bench we will never get our soldiers home. He is a partisan and radical as they come.
It is worth fighting. But I don’t think we have a prayer of keeping him from the bench unless — like my daughter said — it comes out that he’s sleeping with his wife’s sister.
btw, has anyone else noticed that he has “Runaway Bride” eyes?
So on which street corner shall we meet? I will be there my friend. I have been saying this for a year and can’t seem to get anyone to join me. I plan on attending the impeachbush group either in DC or LA on Sept 24th.
Please don’t use the Vietnam Memorial to get your point across. I consider that an affront to those who sacrificed their lives – whose names are engraved on that wall – and the rest of us who served. Would you advocate the same f*cking press conference in Arlington?
Protests would not, and did not, have the desired effect of ending the war in Vietnam. Nixon’s bombing of Hanoi did. And Vietnam was NOT Iraq. The North Vietnamese Army was a skilled and highly-trained armed force, backed up by a pervasive guerrilla force that had been actively fighting (and defeating) a foreign occupier for 20 years before we got there in force.
Iraq is an incoherent grouping of people created by Ottoman and British lines on a map. Noted ad naseum: they have survived those “empires”, as well as Hussein’s Baathists and their wars with Iran, and Gulf I. In no way, shape, or form is Iraq even close to Vietnam.
= = = = = = = = = =
After the Democrats have issued their apology for the infamous 77-23 vote for the Authorization to use Force in Iraq, what are they supposed to say? “We call on the administration to start loading the planes and bring our people home”? I think not.
Since their election we have been serving at the pleasure of the Iraqi government, and they haven’t yet asked us to leave. The mandate for the “multinational force” expires on 31 Dec of this year. Worth reading: UNSC Resolution 1546, which lays out the terms of “disengagement”. (PDF, halfway down the page).
The focus must remain on the people of Iraq. We have lost 1781 people; they have lost somewhere over 22,000. I need to hear what your plans are for that population of 25 million before I support the end of the “occupation”.
I agree that Iraq is not Vietnam. However, when our troops were there, we, the American people were told that we had to stay a little while longer, and then a little while longer yet – until the Vietnamese had a secure and democratic government . . . .
However, security and democracy never came. We propped up one corrupt “government” after another. Vietnamese people, both fighters from the North and the South and civilians, continued to die. American troops continued to die. And when we finally left, what did they have? An oppressive, totalitarian government, a ruined country, and a million graves.
Would Vietnam have been worse off if we had left a year earlier than we did? Two years? Five years? There is no way to ever know the answer to such a hypothetical question, but it’s hard to believe that they would have been worse off.
Although Iraq is different, it looks to me that one thing is the same – I cannot see a realistic outcome in which prolonging the military occupation by the US will improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Living under occupation is bad and getting worse daily for them. Our continuing presence strengthens those elements who can do vast damage to a post-US occupation Iraq.
From the vantage point of an ordinary US citizen (me), I don’t see the majority of the Iraq people embracing the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government or the process of the writing of the new constitution.
The questions are: How to end the occupation? How to prevent civil war after the occupation? How to create a functional government and a constitution that Iraqis will see as legitimate?
Unbelievably difficult questions? Absolutely. But I can’t see that simply saying that it is too difficult and that we must continue our current disastrous occupation will do anything but make life worse for Iraqis, now and in the future.
So what should Democratic Congressmembers do? Tackle the questions, as difficult as they are. People who are very smart, dedicated, experienced need to start working on making a concrete, pragmatic plan. A way must be found to let Iraqis determine their own future. International alliances must be formed for security and rebuilding.
The current administration will continue on with “Things are getting better, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, what we are doing is the Right Thing, we just have to keep doing what we’re doing and Iraq will be strong and free and secure. . . . someday.”
It’s obvious that this will not work. It is not enough anymore for Democrats to keep pointing this out. Most of the American people see this now. What we are waiting for is – what, exactly, is the alternative? Not something one can just pull out of a hat – it really is too difficult for that. But the party, the caucuses need to start working on a plan.
There is a clear timeline in the Resolution that the Iraqis seem to understand very well, but which gets absolutely no press here. That document sets forth terms for U.N. involvement/assistance, migration to a permanent government & constitution, and the expiration of the UN mandate for the multinational force.
A plan? Kerry had one. It was a rational, measured plan, which included steps that could (and IMHO should) be taken to ease the transition to sovereignty for the Iraqi people.
My point is that answers to the questions must come from an Iraqi vantage point.
what the Vietnam Wall represents, to me. My father’s name is on that wall.
I don’t want to wait for the Iraq War Memorial. I don’t want to see 58,000 names or more on another fucking monument to the folly of greed and arrogance that is this war.
I don’t want to wait for the Iraq War Memorial.
Neither do I. But neither do I want some f*cking politician standing in front of that wall. As far as I’m concerned that’s sacred ground. Just like Arlington. It’s a big city. Pick another spot.
What was sacrificed? Lives? The question is, was it worth the sacrifice?
The Wall is a symbol, used by many. Used by yourself. The greatest tribute to the Vietnam Veterans would be to end all wars, and to end this war.
that this Iraq invasion has wrought catastrophic damage. Unfortunately, what’s less obvious to many is that this so-called war was designed from the outset to be a catastrophe; it was engineered, from the very beginning, not to battle against terrorists and make us safer, not to bring representative democracy and freedoms to the MidEast. No!. This “war” is designed to perpetuate itself, to generate instability, to make more enemies so as to justify stepping up military aggression in the region.
Cheney & Co will never admit the chaos and spread of violence represents a mistake on their part, becasuse it’s what they intended all along. Watch now for upcoming tactics desdigned to provke Iran into doing something stupid. Watch out for clandestine destabilization efforts in Lebanon.
These psychopaths running the Bush regime will never relent in their propagation of more and more war, and the cowards in congress will let them. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of congressmen and women from both houses who would stand up and advocate pulling our troops out immediately. They won’t do it because they won’t risk the possibility that they’ll lose funding and votes for their next campaign. Self-interest almost always comes before national interest in congress, and this is a big part of the reason why we’re in the mess we are today, with certifiable lunatics destroying the very fabric of our democracy and disgracing our country throughout the world.
I agree. We must leave now and cease to be targets over there. Our absence will also hopefully reduce the growing size of the insurgency. Or maybe it won’t. But the only way for Americans to stop the killing of Iraqis, by Americans, is to leave.
There is a way out of Iraq — we reposition the forces there to the place where they should have been all along: Afghanistan.
Specifically:
There is nothing we can do to unscrew the mess we’ve created in Iraq. We simply don’t have enough soldiers to do the mission. The whole premise of the neocons was that it was going to be quick and painless. The fact that in March and April of 2003 the Iraqi Army chose not to repeat their mistake of GWI and instead chose to avoid set – piece battles and faded into the woodwork to strike back and times and places of their choosing, was further “proof” to the neocons of how easy this was all going to be. Hence the neocons fatal blunder of Summer ’03 — they confused invasion (easy) with occupation (hard) and disbanded the Iraqi army. We simply can’t go back now and fix that mistake. It’s too late.
It’s clear we’re pulling out of Iraq and that we’ll have gotten large numbers of troops out by a couple of months prior to next year’s off-year elections. Hence the recent discovery by Dear Leader that there are “insurgents” who we can perhaps negotiate with about leaving vs. those mean old “terrorists” who we never negotiate with.
The outlines of what are coming for Iraq are getting clear as well — the Shiites will be allied with the Shiites of Iran; the Kurds will go their own way and as for the Sunnis, well, they’re only 20% of the population and they don’t have any oil, so they’ve got a problem.
If civil war breaks out, there is nothing we can do about it anyway other than be targets for all the warring factions. We simply don’t have enough soldiers and Marines on the ground.
On the other hand, there is something we can do for Afghanistan if we can put enough troops along the Afghan-Pakistan border. But this has to be done quickly– Musharraf has just forcibly “repatriated” the last of the 2.5 million Afghan refugees who fled to Pakistan in 2001-2002. Hidden among that number are many of the Taliban and Al Queda types who were making Musharraf’s life miserable while they were in Pakistan.