Joe Lieberman: US is Winning War in Iraq
Joe Lieberman is one of those Senators who I have defended on several occasions in the past. He is – in my opinion – a good Senator – someone who is able to work with both parties. The left-wing of the Democratic Party does not exactly like him, same goes for the right-wing of the Republican Party (except for the war in Iraq). I do disagree on certain issues with Lieberman, but that does not mean that he is not a good Senator / politician. One of the issues I disagree with him on is Iraq. Yesterday, Lieberman definitely proved that when it comes to Iraq he is blind, deaf, and ill-informed.
“You know, Harry Reid said a while ago that the war in Iraq is lost. It’s wrong. It’s not lost. In fact, I would say we’re beginning to win it. We’ve turned the tide with the new strategy. And in fact, I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which American forces would lose the war in Iraq, on the ground in Iraq. If we lose it, it’s gonna be lost here at home, in a different kind of war for public opinion and political support.”
Lieberman. Joe. How shall I put this… Even military commanders say that this war cannot be won militarily. It really is not that difficult to understand. The American people can support this war for 20 years, but if there is not a major diplomatic effort, if insurgents are not dealt with, if the Iraqi government is not able – or not willing – to oppress the sectarian violence and to unite all Iraqis, everything the US does is – basically – useless. At least when we are talking about “victory,” which probably means establishing a thriving, relatively peaceful and calm (liberal) democracy in Iraq.
As I said, I have defended Lieberman in the past, but he needs to accept reality asap. This is ludicrous. He gives one the impression that he is constantly trying to appeal to the conservative base of the Republican Party.
One problem: he is an independent and the majority of Americans – even of Republicans – has turned or is turning against the war.
34 Responses to “Joe Lieberman: US is Winning War in Iraq”
Michael, there is an assumption about Joe, behind your posting. It is that Joe Leiberman’s interests are aligned with American interests. You fail to see the obvious. What country benefits most with our troops in Iraq? Israel, that’s who. I have often felt that Joe’s allegiance was not aligned with the US. He has too much attachment to us being there and even has asked us to invade Iran. Whose interest is it to invade Iran? Israels of course. I used to like Joe too. But somehow I think he has become an agent of Israel here in the US. What do you think now?
Michael,
A most welcome post.
Lieberman, like McCain, has tied himself so completely to the surge he can no longer think clearly on the subject. Like the petty officers on the Titanic, they are losing their grip and have begun to believe what was meant only to calm the passengers and see the Bush administration safely out of office without having to admit that the boat has sunk.
Win? To get gone without thousands of more troops dying would be victory enough at this stage, and God help the Iraqis left to struggle through the slaughter this appalling misadventure was always likely to create.
Charles, your comment also relies on an assumption: That US and Israeli interests are intrinsically in conflict and that therefore anyone who supports Israel is not loyal to the United States.
I think that assumption is gravely flawed.
Jason:
Charles stated, ‘I have often felt,’ not ‘I have always felt,’ and then he gives the Iraq and Iran examples.
His post seems specific, not a generalization; which you have assumed on his part.
Personally, I think Lieberman is just an ethically anomic person, a man adrift, without any core values- far more so than one could ever accuse Clinton of.
It’s odd, but in all the analyses of why Gore lost to Bush, I’ve never heard anyone posit Lieberman’s dead weight as turning off Independents.
It’s really hard to believe he might have been Vice President.
I also feel that there way too many assumptions about other people’s assumptions here.
I feel that Lieberman’s first and foremost loyalty is to maintain the spotlight on himself as the Independent of all Independents. Judgment on Iraq or anything else seems to play second fiddle to maintaining his persona.
Doma:
You may be right. One cannot be anomic is one is selfish. And Lieberman cares more about himself than doing what is right.
Agreed Jason – I think that Israel’s and America’s interests are – to a large degree – the same.
What interests would those be Michael?
Israel’s MidEast interests are survival. Ours are oil. They have little overlap. AIPAC is the nexus.
I wonder if Joe brought back a McClown rug? His statement reflects that he’s committed to his Iraq position and the “truth” doesn’t matter. The blood of Iraqis and Americans doesn’t matter, just JL image is important…
There is a bit of truth however badly stated in his comment. There is no way that the “insurgency” or any other group in Iraq could defeat or drive out the current forces. If we loose it will be because we quit. Yes the is a point where it’s better to quit than to keep going (a different argument), but he is accurate in his statement.
“There is no way that the “insurgency†or any other group in Iraq could defeat or drive out the current forces. ” …………………..describes a stalemate, at best.
It is not the same as winning the war.
Dead on dom………
Of course it’s sure isn’t losing the war either. The Iraq conflict will not bankrupt the US. It will not destroy our military power. We can keep up the fight for as long as it takes to stabilize the country no matter what the “insurgency” or any other local power does. While the question of the merits of such action are very much in debate the fact is domestic politics are the only way we can “lose”.
Technically…and historically…it could bankrupt the U.S (or at least be a contributing factor).
And it isn’t all about “not losing.” The United Kingdom has done a good job of “not losing” since the ’60s, but have they “not lost” as well as Japan?
What makes you think this description of Lieberman doesn’t apply to yourself? What makes you so sure you are so well informed and correct regarding Iraq?
Well, for example we are both targets of the global jihad, and so is for that matter, the rest of the non-islamic world. If you think throwing Israel to the wolves will make you safer, you are in for one rude awakening, just as those in the 30′s who appeased hitler so long as they believed he was only after the Jews.
The USSR fell after 10 years in Afghanistan. Long wars can contribute to the loss of a nation’s prosperity and certainly weaken our ability to respond to other areas of conflict in the world. Is there any country in the ME that became a democracy after a long occupation by a foreign power? History is against us- maybe we should have studied the first occupation of Iraq by the British in the 1920′s- another costly failure.
As for Lieberman- Joe is no longer in touch with reality on the war, but no longer has a political party to pressure him on votes, either. Like Dick Cheney, he creates his own reality.
And who says it’s about not losing? That would not be my goal but those that say “the war is lost” must mean on the domestic political front. It isn’t can we win but are we willing to pay the price, what is the price, and is it worth it. Manny people have decided it isn’t worth it. I just hope they included the costs of quiting in the calculations they make. Bush may of got us into it but we will all pay. Realistically those costs will include hundreds of thousands of civilians dead over and above the casualty figures that would occur with the US staying. Additional difficulties on the diplomatic front. Hate Bush all you want, but we he said stop or we will take action, counties listened. After withdraw it will be a paper tiger. We will lose trust and respect and, as after Vietnam, it could cripple our diplomacy for years. (yes it can be worse than now)
Bones- We are losing international trust and respect by continuing the occupation. Iraq is now so splintered we don’t even know which side we are on. We can stay in a limited role to try to help refugees and aid in reconstruction- but the Iraqi government will never take charge, and its army will continue to commit sectarian murders.
I say move into damage control mode.
It’s the police and the militias not the Iraq military. Big difference. Personally I think we lose more diplomatically by abandoning Iraq than staying. The first world can beat their chests about how horrid it is, but a quick glace at the third world will quickly show that more than anything else they respect strength not kindness.
As I said a number of days ago, quoting true far-right author Samuel T. Francis: “agents of a foreign country”
This isn’t the first or last time we hear the implicit Israel-bashing as criticism against Lieberman. (Where is the companion Arabism and defense of terrrorists?)
Lieberman’s foreign policy views are definitely pro-Israel, as are any sane American’s, and that doesn’t constitute any kind of wrongdoing by Lieberman whatsoever. A strong foreign policy (not a “pro-Israeli, at US expense or anti-US foreign policy” [sic]) is and remains superior, even if with the problems in Iraq it is more politically incorrect now than it was from 2001 to 2003.
Not only pay the price, but start really fighting, taking off the gloves, unbinding our hands, using more firepower than we have used. (To hell with being dainty and PC about this.)
Those who would scream “war crimes” or “genocide” upon reading the foregoing are not serious nor to be taken seriously.
Can you imagine a PC Patton or LeMay…never mind.
I’m certain that will happen once we leave, especially if Bush is still in office at the time. The facts are not what counts, other than how they change will alter how the irritants elsewhere will have to form their predictable continued criticism of the USA.
The military has been infiltrated by the militias- no difference.
Yes there is. That is a simplistic, and not very accurate, statement especially when, as part of a disarmament campaign, many regional militias were forded into the army and security forces. That is not infiltration.
folded………. dang spellchecker
I read earlier this year that about 1/3 of the Iraqi army were Shiite militia members and were still acting like it (ie in death squads). The police and Ministry of the Interior are even worse. At some point the Iraqis will have to settle this even though we started it.
And we suffered little diplomatic damage when we left Vietnam- by the 80′s we were staring down the Soviets. By staying we prove Bin Laden right when he warns the muslims that we want to occupy their lands. We help al queda recruit when they see our troops in Iraq on al Jazeera (sp?) . Remember the NIE showing that the Iraq War was radicalizing moderates in the ME? I think your analysis is a bit simplistic, because you don’t consider trying the ISG’s recommendations.
How anyone can think that we can afford $15 billion a month for the indefinite future, not counting the full cost of equipment replacement, is beyond me. How anyone can think that our volunteer military and NG units could keep up the kind of deployment schedules they currently have on the same basis is even more baffling.
Joe Lieberman had the audacity to accuse Democratic critics of the war of dragging the political party into the political wilderness. Yet he seems to be in his one little world…one the bears resemblence to reality.
It’s sad, but he has become one of the top apologists for the war, outdoing even some of the most hawkish Republicans. Even six months or so, Lieberman tells us that things are getting better and that we’re on the brink of victory, and yet the reality never matches his rhetoric.
That’s funny. I guess I missed the Islamist terrorist attack in Swizterland…and Norway…and Sweden…and Japan…
Kritter- source????? And again we have armed and fought beside some militia. When trying to latter shut them down many were folded into the army. That was not infiltration, which was your claim. We suffered massive damage for years after Vietnam and we are still feeling it. How you can think otherwise is beyond me. And where did I say I was against the ISG’s recommendations? Did you have something particular in mind?
Yes we could keep this up for 10 years. Longer even. At worst we should start doing some of the things we already should of done. Do we need troops in Germany anymore, Bosnia, Build more Strykers and less Abrams, the list goes on and on.
Joe Lieberman is a complete disgrace. As a Connecticut voter, I am appalled at his willingness to lie during the 2006 campaign about his position on Iraq. He stated unequivocally during the campaign (as evidenced in his Ten Point Plan for Iraq) that he favored reducing troop levels in Iraq, and then didn’t wait a week after the election before reversing himself.
Quite simply, the man is as brazen a liar as there is in politics (outside the bush administration, of course). The case against Joe Lieberman is laid out in full, and damningly so, here: http://lieberwatch.blogspot.com/