Four problems with ‘Bring the Troops Home Now’:
First, logistics. We can’t bring the troops home now. We can ‘start bringing the troops home now,’ but we can’t simply bring them home now. This is a process that, even in a perfect world, with competent leadership and no ‘insurgency’, would take a good deal of time.
I realize, of course, that ‘bring the troops home now’ functions more as a rallying cry than an actual policy recommendation, and really means ‘start withdrawal now.’ But in this media environment, a rallying cry which is unrealistic–and gives the blowhards something to easily oppose and ridicule–is not optimally effective.
Second, ‘Bring the Troops Home Now’ is divisive of the left. There are many on the left (including many on this site, and Howard Dean, for example) who want an exit plan and support phased withdrawal … but don’t or can’t get behind ‘Bring the Troops Home Now.’
Some of this is undoubtedly political calculation (which I leave to the political calculators–maybe they’re right, maybe wrong) but some is reality-based consideration. Several months ago, Juan Cole said a simple US withdrawal was not wise (though I don’t know if he’s changed his mind). So this statement–slogan, whatever–divides the left.
Third, ‘Bring the Troops Home Now’ unites the right with the center with the wafflers. If ‘withdrawal now’ is the most cohesive statement of the left, the right will claim anything less as their own. Everything from increasing troop numbers and ‘staying the course’ to phased withdrawal and drawing-down the number of troops (which are the only way to begin to bring the troops home now), are ceded to the right.
Everyone who thinks, ‘ I’m not sure we should bring the troops home now” is led to conclude that they are not really anti-war, and–given this polarized environment–to figure that means they must be pro-war, or pro-Republican, or pro-stay-the-course.
Fourth, there is no evidence to suggest this administration responds to events in the actually-existing world. They don’t respond to the facts on the ground in a war zone, they don’t listen to career military experts … why assume they’d heed this cry? They control all the centers of political power: we cannot force them to take action, we must convince them to take action.
Obviously, many will never be convinced. But given recent polls, there is a possibility that we can make the political cost of supporting this quagmire perfectly clear. However, ‘Bring the Troops Home Now’ does not heighten the political costs for those on the right to continue to support the occupation. In fact, it lessens the cost. We give them something to oppose and to blame (‘Immediate withdrawal, Jim? That’s crazy lefty defeatist talk–as well as being impossible!’) and the right thrives on opposition and blaming.
Now, this is all political talk, and doesn’t address the real human loss–the death, the despair, the grief–of the war. But it is politics which determines our course in Iraq.
So what is the most effective slogan we can adopt to oppose the quagmire? The slogan must unite the left, wedge the right, appeal to the center; must have the ring of self-evident and common-sensical truth; and must coopt the support of at least some Republicans. (Also, it preferably negates the ‘these colors don’t run’ and ‘if we leave, the terrorists win’ arguments, which I think are tremendously effective for the right.)
This is my suggestion: an up or down vote. Ask Iraqis to determine if we stay or leave.
Instead of Bush mumbling about the Iraqis deserving freedom, and how we took down Sadaam, we insist he walk the talk: give them freedom to determine who stays in their country. The right and center has been primed to accept ‘up or down vote’ as eminently sensible. The fear that ‘the terrorists have won’ is dissipated as we declare victory–free elections to determine our own presence–which encourages even Republicans to back this. And we get the hell out … if asked.
Of course, there are problems with this idea (besides that the whole thing was dreamt up by a chubby bald guy sitting at his computer). Given the Bushco electoral meddling in Afghanistan and Iraq, do we trust them to run this vote? Are there regional votes, so we might stay in some areas and leave others? And there are undoubtely dozens more.
But I think ‘Bring the Troops Home Now,’ though a very simple, strong statement, isn’t the most effective thing we can be saying. An up or down vote in Iraq: Let Them Decide.
You say: Obviously, many will never be convinced. But given recent polls, there is a possibility that we can make the political cost of supporting this quagmire perfectly clear. However, ‘Bring the Troops Home Now’ does not heighten the political costs for those on the right to continue to support the occupation. In fact, it lessens the cost. We give them something to oppose and to blame (‘Immediate withdrawal, Jim? That’s crazy lefty defeatist talk–as well as being impossible!’) and the right thrives on opposition and blaming.
Now, this is all political talk, and doesn’t address the real human loss–the death, the despair, the grief–of the war. But it is politics which determines our course in Iraq.
I say: How would you feel proposing exploiting MORE unnecessary deaths of our military people to their families. “Sorry, but we need a few more of you to die so we can make political hay here?” I find the idea repugnant.
They have given far too much already. I think there’s nothing wrong with saying Bring Them Home Now, and What is the Noble Cause?. They should never have been there in the first place!
The question is simple: What’s the fastest road to disengagement in Iraq?
Do you think saying ‘Bring Them Home Now’ is an effective way to convince the Bush administration to bring them home now? I’m not sure why you’d think that. The question isn’t where our troops should or should not be: it’s how to bring them the hell back home.
‘Bring Them Home Now’ appears to be a finer ethical statement than what I’m proposing, but I’m not sure it is. If saying ‘Up or Down Vote, Let Them Decide’ will actually bring our troops home sooner, isn’t that (or something similar) what we must say?
The Bush administration will make the decision about when and how to bring the troops home. Our outrage, and the facts on the ground, and the suffering of families–those things don’t appear to be factors for the Bush administration. What I’m trying to figure is, given we don’t have the power to directly bring the troops home, how do we most effectively do so?
with your argument (IMHO, anyway. Like you, I’m no expert) is that you’re still relying on the Bush administration to make a decision to bring them home. That won’t happen. The decision is going to have to be made for them, and the pressure will have to build until they finally have no choice but to acquiesce.
As for a slogan, I’m a much bigger fan of ‘Bring Them Home’. Drop the ‘Now’. I don’t know enough of the facts on the ground to know whether or not it is better for us to have a mass exodus, or to leave in successive waves, and I think that is a valid topic for debate. But bringing them home (again, IMHO) is a necessity.
point. But I think my idea (or something similar, that is) is the way to bring the most pressure to bear.
I worry that ‘Bring Them Home’ (or ‘Bring Them Home Now’) simply won’t be effective. First, because Bushco will agree they want to Bring Them Home. They’ll agree with that forever … they’ll bring them home next year, next year, the year after that. And ‘Bring Them Home Now’ they can too easily paint as loony leftie, and ridicule and ignore.
I guess I see ‘Bring Them Home’ permutations as too explicitly anti-war, and so with a limited appeal–that is, as appealing almost exclusively to non-Bush voters. Something like ‘up or down vote,’ however, can be spun as common sense pro-democracy. Of course the Iraqis should decide! And so that brings far more pressure, as Bush voters actually sign on to ending this war.
Bushco has already written us off. What do they care, what we think? They don’t. But if their own voters turn on them …
That’s where I think we should focus. On Bush voters. That’s where the pressure is. Question is (to my mind), what’s the best way to galvanize a Republican movement to withdraw the troops?
There is already a sizeable percentage of self-identified Republicans who think we need to pull out.
There is also a sizeable percentage of devotees to the Bush cause who will not change their mind. Period.
By issuing a straight up demand that we get our troops out in the quickest but most pragmatic way possible, we appeal to the left, the grand majority of independents, and the group of Republicans who have had enough.
It’s no use trying to change the minds of the others. They won’t change. But they are outnumbered, and poll after poll shows it. Instead of trying to change their minds, I’d rather our energy be spent in ramping up the opposition to the war that we’ve already built.
There comes a point when we have to stop building our base and start doing something with it, and I think we’re at that point now. And by taking a strong stand, I think we’ll attract even more of those who may be reluctant to oppose the war openly, because they’ll see that they’re in the majority.
Well said. No one believes we will discover how to disapperate. But as a nation we could choose to hire, hmmmm, PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THEY ARE DOING as opposed to people distinguished by closed minds, ignorance, and fascist loyalty to the Great Leader.
So maybe listen to some actual military combat leaders. Bring in some people who helped, say, Bangladesh recover from Pakistan or East Timor recover from Indonesia. Hire Jaun Cole as an advisor. Stop sending actual anti-American spies as Ambassadors to Iraq (just to be level, let’s remember one spy was from Iran and one was from Israel).
Bring Them Home Now is just more easier to say than Let’s Have Just One Single Coherent Rational Thought.
(Welcome to BooMan Tribune, btw!)
How about an upper-down vote in the U.S. on whether or not we should bring our own boys (and girls) back home?
Why ask foreigners to make our own foreign policy decisions when we’re perfectly capable of making them ourselves?
In the midst of all that is going on in their country, they are making those decisions. There has been a clear timeline with “trigger conditions” since passage of Security Council Resolution 1546 [UNSCR 1546], among which is this:
“12. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq; “
It is their country – not ours – always has been. Occupation is not ownership.
we know how seriously Bush treats those silly foreign resolutions.
I’m trying to sway Bush votes in the States–the only non-country-club people Bushco cares about. All the international mumbo jumbo is easy to ignore: only if Republicans and independents start showing sufficient discontent will we see any action. I just don’t know what else might possibly influence Bushco do actually do anything.
We can’t insitute change without context. When you strip away the b.s. from the election, the majority of people who voted for Bush did so out of fear. I think they responded to this: “We will fight them over there, so they don’t come here.”
After a considerable e-mail exchange, a member of my family admitted that statement was false, leading him to question the decision to invade Iraq. In the end he agreed we should have spent the 300 billion on actually fighting terrorism.
I’m more inclined to ask “What ‘War on Terror’?”. The administration doesn’t have an answer for that one.
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.” George W. Bush, 4/9/99
[Source: ThinkProgress].
The only thing I see happening now is that the current administration will stay the course, what ever that course is, anyhow…..
They have never said what that course is! This is what that press conference was to be about that fell thru the rat hole. The American PPL were wanting to hear that from him..not one word did we here about the prognosis of this problem.
I agree that we cant just drop things and get on a plane or ship and get out. It does need some sort of comprehensive methodology for the troop withdrawal …but I am afraid that there will be none what so ever with this administration. They intend on staying ins some fashion or the other.
I say if we leave just one battalion behind, we will be sending a delegation there to bring home their body bags very soon. That is the dilemma, as I see it.
I agree that the word now needs to be dropped. I suggest that we get the message out that they have and must come home and to plan a withdrawal starting now. Once that we and the Iraqis see we are doming home and leaving them to their own resources as to a government by such direction as described about with the UN resolutions, of which I have read, BTW, then we have to leave. This whole process has not been described by our government in such a way that our PPL understand the process, completely!!!!!
This leads me to the conclusion that bush and co. intends no nothing of the sort..meaning leaving.
If this should go down this way, by not leaving, I mean, then we are in violation of the contract drawn up by the parties involved and we are criminals then for sure.
I have read and heard that the Iraqis are asking for us to leave. I would too, if it were me…but they need to get their own work done and get on with getting on. A civil war is in progress, plain and simple. It could get worse, if we are there…and it could get worse for us being there inbetween the devil and his opponents. If we do not see some sort of progress in the direction of withdrawal with dignity very soon, we are in deep feces with this world as a whole. This is the law~! as I understand it.
I also see it that we are the problem by being there. If this is true, then why are we still there? The old saying is, if you are not part of the solution, then you are still part of the problem.