An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Centrists and Liberals Part II
Glenn Greenwald on withdrawing from Iraq and the position held by (some) centrists on this matter.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Centrists and Liberals Part II”
I would not be surprised if James Baker stacked the deck in the Study Group to favor a predetermined conclusion.
But I would like to think that the meaning of “centrists” as applied to the members is about their open mindedness to consider the facts and remedies without prejudice or defensiveness. This is a manipulation by Baker that I could endorse.
Further it seems to me that no reasonable solution would include 100% withdrawal of US resources from the entire region. I expect us to have a large presence there for as long as we have interests to protect such as shipping lanes, oil, and containing terrorism.
What seems reasonable to me is that a regional dialogue will be organized along the lines of the The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the world’s largest regional security organization whose 56 participating States span the geographical area from Vancouver to Vladivostok
Greenwald’s colorful rhetoric about Rubin and the Neoconservatives aside, I think he brings up a very good point about how the public debate has been skewed by those in the government and in the media to make it look like the anti-war side represents the fringe.
It’s interesting to note, when discussing our options in Iraq (i.e. go big, go long, or go home), how quickly the withdrawal option is dismissed by politicians and the media as a fringe opinion. Yet polls do not support this assumption. In fact, withdrawing from Iraq has been a fairly mainstream opinion in this country FOR MORE THAN A YEAR–a fact that these USA today polls makes very clear:
Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer?
June 23-25, 2006
Withdraw immediately….17%
Withdraw in 12 months’s time….33%
Withdraw, take as many years as needed….41%
Send more troops….8%
No opinion….1%
June 9-11, 2006
Withdraw immediately….17%
Withdraw in 12 months’s time….32%
Withdraw, take as many years as needed….42%
Send more troops….6%
No opinion….3%
March 10-12, 2006
Withdraw immediately….19%
Withdraw in 12 months’s time….35%
Withdraw, take as many years as needed….39%
Send more troops….4%
No opinion….3%
November 11-13, 2005
Withdraw immediately….19%
Withdraw in 12 months’s time….33%
Withdraw, take as many years as needed….38%
Send more troops….7%
No opinion….3%
In other words, during the last 12 months, the “withdraw immediately”/”withdraw in 12 months’ time” options have CONSISTENTLY polled about 50%. In fact, going back to last November, a slim majority (52%) advocated that we withdraw by November of 2006–which is THIS MONTH.
It seems pretty clear to me, what is happening here. For more than a year, at least 50% of Americans have been asking our government to withdrawal from Iraq, giving our government a window of about 12 months to do so. But this obviously never happens, and each time the question is raised anew, die-hard proponents of the war try to marginalize the antiwar side so that the “withdraw now or sometime within the next six months” option is taken off the table. Thus the “debated” date of withdrawal keeps getting pushed back–which is exactly what the die-hard proponents of the war want.
If I were to conduct a poll today asking whether we should withdraw from in Iraq in the next 12 months versus stay longer, 50% of Americans would EASILY chose the first option. Yet mark mark my words, we will STILL be in Iraq 12 months from now, and die-hard proponents of the war will STILL be denouncing those advocating withdrawal.
How do you guarantee that your country will be embroiled in a war for years to come with no end in sight?
Simple. You promise the American people that victory is within our grasp if we just “stay the course” while vilifying those who want to “cut-and-run.”
American punditry at its best.
Most polls and surveys are done in a vacuum without attaching a price or consequence to the answer.
Sure most of us would like to withdraw from Iraq but would the answer be the same if we asked:
Should we withdraw for Iraq even if the consequences is: gasoline jumps to $4 per gallon, 500,000 people die in civil war, Allies refuse to trust US promises, Iran and Syria divide up control of Iraq, Terrorist expand a caliphate from Morroco to Pakistan, etc.
American’s used to trust our leaders to weigh the pragmatic consequences of our foreign affairs. Many of us have lost faith and grasp at simple answers.
Paul,
Do you really think that our staying in Iraq would affect any of the items on this list?
gasoline jumps to $4 per gallon
Gasoline seems to top an awful lot of lists. Lately it seems to be working it’s way to the top of the list of reasons we invaded Iraq in the first place.
How do you see our continued presence in Iraq having a positive effect on gas prices? We haven’t even got production / distribution up to pre-invasion volume.
$4.00 gas… Maybe you should talk to Chevron or Exxon. They created a 60¢ a gallon ‘Pre / Post Election’ fluctuation in gas prices during a time of little to no change in their ‘per barrel’ costs… or their record quarterly profits.
Still, to many, it’s Iraq not Big Oil that’s terrorizing us with the threat of $4.00 gasoline.
500,000 people die in civil war
Some say we’ve already been party to 500,000 civilian deaths. How do you see our continued presence in Iraq a positive force in preventing further Iraqi carnage?
Allies refuse to trust US promises
If you haven’t noticed, We’re there already. What would our continued presence in Iraq do to help our reputation in the world?
Iran and Syria divide up control of Iraq, Terrorist expand a caliphate from Morocco to Pakistan, etc.
Iran and Syria join with other Mid Eastern countries to reunite peoples of all religious persuasions. Terrorists are evicted from entire region and to the surprise of many an unknown era of peace embraces the entire region.
Two opposing fictions… Neither based on reality and, IMO, neither add anything to the debate.
Regards, Steve
Steve,
Those are all reasonable responses. And I agree with much of what you say.
My point was that when people respond to a simple poll about whether they support something or not they are answering in a vaccum without factoring in the cost of a particular choice.
eg Sure many of us are for lower taxes. Now which major services of the government are we willing to give up? That would be the more interesting, and meaningful, survey.
Paul,
Your ‘poll in a vaccum’ theory is reasonable and does make a lot of sense.
I was just having another bout of Iraqnophobia…