Coming to the Aid of Decent People
I agree with Senator Lieberman’s commentary today in the Washington Post Why We Need More Troops in Iraq By Joseph Lieberman
I saw firsthand evidence in Iraq of the development of a multiethnic, moderate coalition against the extremists of al-Qaeda and against the Mahdi Army, which is sponsored and armed by Iran and has inflamed the sectarian violence. We cannot abandon these brave Iraqi patriots who have stood up and fought the extremists and terrorists.
And PM Tony Blair’s commentary in Foreign Affairs
This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence — between optimism and hope, on the one hand, and pessimism and fear, on the other.
Yes this war has been mismanaged, it is inconvenient, and it is expensive. And yes we may lose it still. But I can’t support abandoning so many millions of people that WE put in harms way by surrendering them to ethnic cleansing. I feel shame when the most powerful society in history abandoned so many freedom loving southeast Asians after the Vietnam War, when we ignore those in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and other killing fields.
I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.
34 Responses to “Coming to the Aid of Decent People”
We are most definately stuck in Iraq for the next decade or so and thousands more Americans are going to die in this horror show of a war, but I don’t see what 25,000 more troops is going to do to speed up or ensure “victory”. The insurgents will either wait out the “surge” or more likely, stage attacks in areas where there are not enough troops to prevent the attacks.
P.S. Lieberman hasn’t been right about this war at any step in its execution why should we care what he thinks now?
Congratulations Paul. You and Lieberman are officially “11 percenters”. 89% of Americans disagree with you. We do appreciate your willingness to quit your day job and go fight the (Shi’ite) Mahdi army and (Sunni) Al Quaeda. We’ll miss you for sure, but what a magnanimous gesture for such a lost cause. Paul, we literally fight one side one day and the other the next, while both shoot at us and a majority of Iraqis think it’s OK to kill Americans. What a mess.
We don’t even know who to kill and who to protect. I guess you and Lieberman have it all figured out now. More troops won’t help, not even Vietnam level troops (don’t you get it?). But if you and Joe get your way, it will certainly seal the GOP’s fate.
The only way you are going to sell the idea of more troops is to have some type of benchmarks or other well defined series of objectives that if not met will mean the complete withdrawal of our forces, in other words no more open ended commitments. Recent polls have shown that most Iraqis want us out, a good majority of Iraqis now say it is OK to attack Americans, so getting Iraqi to buy in to any goals will be the first hurdle. With the neighborhood by neighborhood ethnic cleansing going on there might be a reduction in violence. But lower violence will not be the result of people wanting to live with each other, they just won’t be able to get at each other as easy as before. A temporary reduction in violence as a result of more troops or more ethnic cleansing does not solve the underlying problem, these people hate each other, want revenge on each other, and there are plenty of people like Sadr who will take advantage of that hatred for political power.
Nothing says centrism like extremist plans with no clear goals in mind that will severely cripple the Army!
If you’re so concerned about those poor Iraqis why don’t you ask the State Department why America’s biggest embassy on the planet doesn’t offer Visas?
And generally speaking, if you agree with Joe Lieberman regarding Iraq, history show’s there’s a 99% chance you’re both wrong.
Additionally I’d like to add one thing.
Isn’t it time Joe Lieberman shows a little bit of humility and finally shuts his mouth regarding Iraq?
He looks more foolish than ever, he’s been consistantly wrong and it’s well documented due to his love of the microphones, and there are just enough gullible fools out there like this one who will still listen to him.
Then by all means do so — and leave the rest of us alone.
The insurgents will either wait out the “surge” or more likely stage attacks in areas where there are not enough troops to prevent the attacks. Good point, Blue Neoponset— and I totally agree. That is why Casey, Abizaid and the JCS opposed the surge in the first place.
Lieberman may be a centrist on other issues, but he’s a classic neocon on Iraq.In my mind the neocons and their theories of spreading democracy work better on paper than in the real world. The flawed judgements which got us into this mess, are threatening to take us in deeper, and at a very high cost to our military.
Almost no credible military analyst gives this plan any real chance- it is a last ditch effort to avoid a humiliating defeat for Bush and his cronies. Its more about the Bush legacy than those brave patriots in Iraq.
Bush gave a speech the other day, talking about the pain he feels about the 3,000 American lives lost. He ended it with the obligatory schpiel about how we have to make sure their lives weren’t lost in vain. I’m sorry, but if that was my loved one, it would make me feel worse to know that more lives were being sacrificed for a lost cause.
From the Wall Street Journal
Paul,
Bush is the one not winning the moral war at home or the shooting war in Iraq. If you are trying to blame those who either read or print the “bloody front page[s]” for the lack or morale or success in Iraq then I think you are pointing your finger at the wrong people.
If you are trying to make another point by quoting that WSJ article or editorial you may want to be more explicit because there is a lot of different ways to interpret that passage.
Those who are there have committed their best efforts and risked their lives. They have seen fellow soldiers blown to pieces. They are in “survival mode”. They also do not see the larger picture. That is the job of the military and civilian leadership in the Pentagon. If you had given all to a fruitless endeavor, would you be the one to want to ask to pull the plug?
In 1975 President Ford was forced to pull out of Viet Nam. It wasn’t glorious, it wasn’t uplifting, and probably many there wanted to keep fighting. Ford, himself, was deeply depressed because he was the only president in history to lose a war. But he sucked it up and did what he had to do. Congress won’t do what they did then, and cut off funding for a hopeless cause. Its up to Bush to see the reality of the situation, and not put one more life than is necessary at risk.
“I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.”
I genuinely applaud your willingness to do what it takes to win in Iraq but, sadly, Bush doesn’t seem to share your desire to actually ask Americans at home to sacrifice for this war effort – especially among his base (you know – “the have mores”). Wonder why?
And if Lieberman and Bush really want to do this than they need to do it in a way that might actually accomplish something – 300,000+ troops over several years. 25,000 is just enough to add more unnecessary deaths without changing a thing in Iraq. But you go ahead and support the guys who have been wrong 100% so far about the situation.
By the way, anyone deluded into thinking that the neocons have noble intentions, consider this.
Want to help them “stand up”? Give Iraqi forces our modern weapons (if you think they’re truly on our side), and get out.
You “would be” willing.
That means, you’re not doing this already?
Go sign up and get back to us.
This is the WSJ article I referenced.
Cut-and-Run Is Not in Their Vocabulary
Millions of civilized Iraqi will suffer because of our failure to secure Bagdad. Hundreds of millions more will suffer because of the encouragement we give to radicals.
A few corrections, Paul:
Millions of civilized Iraqi will suffer because of our invasion of Iraq. Hundreds of millions more will suffer because of the encouragement we give to radicals because of our invasion of Iraq.
I’m giving it 1000:1 odds that he doesn’t do any of this for any length of time, even in the future.
How old are you, Paul? You know they’ve bumped the maximum enlistment age into the 40s, right?
Geez, maybe that’s unfair. I mean, someone has to do the critically important work of forming centrist PACs and forging non-partisan pragmatic solutions to chronic issues.
Thank you for the link.
Paul–
I’m sympathetic. We made a promise to the Iraqis.
But as events have unfolded, I wonder if it’s possible to fix the problems. I wonder if our presence there is just postponing the inevitable slaughter. I wonder if our presence there isn’t making things worse. And I’m very dubious of the ability of our leaders to do anything useful.
And I have to add, Joe Lieberman is not credible, in my opinion, on any of these topics.
Read this and then tell me that Lieberman’s plan makes sense.
A patriot’s sentiments.
I must admit I find it unusual to read such views here on TMV. Liberals generally don’t care how many wogs have to die for their freedoms.
Conservatives generally don’t care how many wogs and US servicemen have to die for their pride.
Paul, did the Wall Street Journal provide some evidence to support this quote?
Because polling shows that this just isn’t the case.
Then again, this is the Wall Street Journal’s editorial fantasy page.
Davebo,
I provided the link to the WSJ article in a previous comment above.
It is one of the frustrations of this larger debate to figure out the facts and put opinion and polls in perspective.
I am sure most people would prefer the end of violence.
But what sacrifice are people willing to make to this end? The Zogby poll was asking when they would like to go home. It didn’t seem to be asking if they prefer to go before stablizing security.
As a business owner and investor I am less skeptical of the WSJ than some. They are looking at the ME in terms of what would it take to promote commerce. Security and the rule of secular law are high on the list.
I have a lot of respect for the news side of the Wall Street Journal, and I too am a business owner.
But the editorial page is and always has been purely partisan, and as a bidness owner surely you recognize this fact?
For my informal poll of 4 returned Iraq war vets, the WSJ Editorial page is as wrong as always.
The quote squarely places all of the hardship, burden, and pain on the soldiers and their family. The WSJ is using the soldiers as the vehicle to get their point across – granted there will be folks in the military who will support come hell or high water to stick it out. But it is not the editorial staff or 98% of the population in the US going to be spending more frequent and for longer deployments than our soldiers and marines. This basically ‘blue falcons’ the people who will spend more and more time away from their families so public can go out and follow the POTUS recommendation to be more materialistic (spend money).
I agree with Kim that Sen. Joe Lieberman is a classic neo-con, but I do so because I believe he suffers from the ailment called GFI. He uses universals to discuss strategy, but lacks the ability to show how exactly one is to get from point ‘A’ (chaos) to point ‘B’ (justice, virtue, etc).
The desire to ‘stick it out longer’ and ‘try harder’, as envisioned by Lieberman and others is a fantasy. Due to causality, we lost the initiatives over the past three years because of strategic blunders; and the answer currently being thrown out to be solution is too little, too late. I want to correct the mess that our nation has made in Iraq, but we need to look outside the box on identifying and applying the solution. The military has shown one such solution is to get the civil side of the house to step up to help alleviate the pressures caused by the insurgents, but everyone wants to go the easy route and send in more troops.
Bush’s leadership is woefully bereft -he has become a laughingstock in his own country—Maybe the best we can hope for is to keep the situation under control, until after the ’08 elections. How can anyone rational trust his abilities as commandr-in-chief at this point?
Also, Greendreams point is well taken. There is always some wonderful rhetoric about how we are helping the Iraqis stand up after years of oppression. But if the Iraqi army is ill-equipped, how can we expect any other results?
The NYT today had an article about 100 severely tortured men destined for execution that the US army freed in Basra. They weren’t prisoners of Saddam, they were prisoners of the lawful, Shiite government. But no one can even tell the difference.
There is no word other than “hate” to describe the attitude reflected above by many from the extreme left towards anyone and everyone that disagrees with them on this issue. Their frequent use of personal attacks and their habit of questioning personal integrity rather than actually engaging in arguments is a “red flag” about the intellectual bankruptcy of the extreme left.
The calls for a “specific plan” are also disingenuous. The Democratic Party just won an election by deliberately refusing to propose any plans of their own. And none of the smug far-left commentators on this thread have offered any suggestions of their own except to just keep bashing Bush.
Maybe, just maybe, it is time for some of the lefties to sit down, take a deep breath and consider that it might be barely possible for someone to disagree with them without automatically being assumed to be a liar or a dupe.
But then again, that would take all the fun out of it, right?
Paul, you should be commended for not taking the bait of some of these jerks. You’re a better man than I am.
I am disappointed that almost all of the comments focus on the uselessness of continued resistance to the insurgents and militias rather than sympathy for the maiming and killing of so many people because of our intrusion in their lives. We broke it – we own it.
I remember crying with my buddies as we watched in disbelief while the helicopters of the USA departed Saigon as thousands of people tried to escape certain death to them and their families.
Shameful
Excuse, me Jason, but as one of the “jerks” I feel entitled to ask–just how did we hatefully use personal attacks on Paul? I think everyone on this thread has been respectful towards his point of view. We just disagree. Maybe you could show some respect for those who disagree with your point of view. Its hard to make the case that only the extreme left is opposed to the surge, when 89% of Americans actually feel this way. These radicals actually include Generals Casey (before he was pressured) , Abizaid, and the JCS. Others include Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, William F Buckley, and Joe Biden. We just recently learned that Gerald Ford opposed the entire venture, as does Bush’s own father. So save it.
Kim, I wouldn’t consider you one of the folks who makes these discussions personal.
Some do. For many folks the acceptance of their opinion is tied up in their own validation. This makes political discussions so lively.
It also highlights my recurring focus on Centrist and moderate candidates. We can see on this blog how ridiculing the point of view of another can easily overshadow the merits to an argument. It is a rare public servant who can stay centered in mutual respect while getting bashed as ignorant or mean spirited.
Paul, you’re being astonishingly ridiculous.
I can only conclude that you’re more concerned with politesse and a desperate need for “centrism” than the fact that Americans and Iraqis continue to die and there aren’t any workable solutions.
Something that is opposed by 89% of the public in not centrist. Escalation of the war in Iraq is not moderate. Expanding the war to Iran is extremist.
You certainly can conclude that I’m more concerned with politesse and a desperate need for “centrism” because that is the only way we could have avoided this mess and the only way we are going to get out of it and the only way to avoid making mistakes like this again.
People who ridicule others are rarely part of the solution.
Yes, Paul, centrists like Lieberman and McCain would have saved us from going into Iraq.
Meanwhile, leftists like Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore, who have merely been right about all of the consequences of invading Iraq, should be dismissed because they’re not centrists.
I’m enjoying your weird revisionist history. Only moderates can save us!