The Iraq dilemma that both Reps and Dems are shirking

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Tapped blog at The American Prospect formulates the dilemma.

The NIE report has a combined sixteen US intelligence agencies confirming that the US invasion and presence in Iraq has cultivated, and is cultivating, new supporters of the jihad movement, bolstering its recruitment and motivation.

But at the same time, the NIE report reports that any perceived victory of the jihadists in Iraq now, will only further bolster their strength.

Blame Bush for getting us in this situation, but there you are: you cant win for losing. The dilemma in short:

Quote:

<snip>

Thus, the report highlights the essential dilemma Iraq poses for the war on terror: staying fuels the al-Qaeda-inspired movement, creating a net increase in the terrorist threat; while leaving Iraq in chaos would also worsen the threat.

The Democrats tend to focus on the first part of the dilemma; the administration focuses on the second part. They are both right (and wrong) -- and the debate would be greatly served by focusing on the dilemma itself."

The solution that military folks would suggest runs exactly counter to both the Bush message of current progress towards victory and the Democrats' argument for starting withdrawals, as TNR's The Plank notes:

Quote:

The NIE report's mixed-bag message brings to mind the mixed-message testimony three retired military critics of Donald Rumsfeld delivered to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee yesterday. As Dana Milbank sketches for the WaPo, after lambasting Rumsfeld for the way he's run the war to date, the three retired officers

offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq. "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned. "We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes. "We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces. [..]

Echoes of Vietnam?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,273 • Replies: 34

No top replies

I'll tell ya. If the President, who I loathe, would come on TV and just plain level with the American public, put us on a wartime economy, and ask everyone to start tightening their belts to pay for this long Iraq war, which I loathe, I would do it and applaud him for it. And so would others, I suspect.

But he won't, because he'll never ask the rich to sacrifice (and they are the ones who would have to sacrifice the most) and because he, I believe, is incapable of really admitting the truth after so many years of presenting a front.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But he won't, because he'll never ask the rich to sacrifice (and they are the ones who would have to sacrifice the most)

Tell me how.

0 Replies

So, to the end of neighborhood improvement and because it just seems right, someone drops a stink bomb down the chimney of the local Hell's Angels clubhouse. The doors blow open. If hornets were angry and big enough to drink beer and get tattoos, that's your new problem.

First, you probably don't want the clown up on the roof to call the shots as regards what you do now.

And what it is you do do now isn't obvious.

0 Replies

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was also a combined report from many Intelligence agencies that confirmed Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Key findings from that report can be found here.

I bring this up because all the sudden, the NIE is being taken for gospel and I want people to know what the administration was working from previouos to the war in Iraq.

Either the NIE is correct and we believe it, or it is incorrect and we don't. You don't get to say one was and one wasn't because it helps/hurts your cause. Both were produced by the same agencies and both were classified upon receipt.

0 Replies

McG - quote your source, please.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was also a combined report from many Intelligence agencies that confirmed Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Key findings from that report can be found here.

I bring this up because all the sudden, the NIE is being taken for gospel and I want people to know what the administration was working from previouos to the war in Iraq.

Either the NIE is correct and we believe it, or it is incorrect and we don't. You don't get to say one was and one wasn't because it helps/hurts your cause. Both were produced by the same agencies and both were classified upon receipt.

And both have been cherry-picked by the administration to make the best case for their insanity.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was also a combined report from many Intelligence agencies that confirmed Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Key findings from that report can be found here.

Actually, it was a cherry-picked collage of excerpts from that NIE that seemed to clearly confirm that Iraq had WMD. A declassification of the full report at the time would have provided a slightly more ambiguous picture.

Of course, fair point: this time, too, we are only looking at cherrypicked parts of the full NIE report, selected by the administration.

That only means one thing though: yes, we have to keep one thing in mind when we are tempted to take the word of this report for gospel: if this is what they have selected for us to read, the reality is most probably only worse still - much worse, probably.

Considering that both messages implied in the dilemma here - the war has boosted recruitment and morale for the jihadists, but its only going to be worse still once we move out - aren't exactly propaganda for the administration, we can safely assume that if we were looking at the full report, the dilemma would only be shown to be more acute still.

What is your take on it, then?

0 Replies

McG

Nimh and snood have pointed out the chimpanzee-wrench busting the gears of your argument. What information this adminstration allows the public to know is only that they desire the public to know. It is a fundamental political strategy they employ, across the boards, in order to hold or increase power. It is pure Machiavelli (with a modern advertising-technique twist) it is inherently deceitful, and it really does serious damage to the citizens' ability to understand issues fully. It's faux democracy.

Consider this item from today's Times and the pattern of behavior which it exemplifies...

Quote:

Scientists Form Group to Support Science-Friendly Candidates

By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: September 28, 2006
Several prominent scientists said yesterday that they had formed an organization dedicated to electing politicians "who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy."

Organizers of the group, Scientists and Engineers for America, said it would be nonpartisan, but in interviews several said Bush administration science policies had led them to act. The issues they cited included the administration's position on climate change, its restrictions on stem cell research and delays in authorizing the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception.

In a statement posted on its Web site (www.sefora.org), the group said scientists and engineers had an obligation "to enter the political debate when the nation's leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interest ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research."

One can say that they are, in these instances noted, playing to their base, and of course they are. But it is one thing to make a moral or ideological argument and it is quite another thing to suppress factual information simply for political gain. That is, in and of itself, immoral.

The scope and frequency of such suppression of information really ought to make you step back and consider what is going on. I understand you have a conservative outlook as regards many political issues, but this particular group of modern conservatives now running your adminisitration and party are uniquely and dangerously authoritarian in their operations and ideas.

0 Replies

I can't believe you guys are so naive as to believe that something titled the National Intelligence Estimate might have some classified information in it that needs not become publicized.

The public and, more importantly, our enemies do not need to know every detail of our intelligance gathering. This report was leaked and later made public. Snood, do you really beleive that this latest report is helping the Bush administration? In any way?

0 Replies

No kidding.

My god, man, there's no hope for you.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I can't believe you guys are so naive as to believe that something titled the National Intelligence Estimate might have some classified information in it that needs not become publicized.

The public and, more importantly, our enemies do not need to know every detail of our intelligance gathering. This report was leaked and later made public. Snood, do you really beleive that this latest report is helping the Bush administration? In any way?

These Bushwackers are so very typical of the extreme liberal hatred of our military, that they WANT to see our soldiers DEAD!!! Then they can accuse GW of being the cause for our Soldiers death and they can feel better about themselves.

Therefore, any information that can help the enemy kill more of our soldiers, they want it made public. This is the same scum who acted similiarly during Viet Nam.

Since they are unable to communicate a convincing argument or alternative to GW's failed strategy in Iraq, they resort to this lowest form of what they think is "patriotic" duty.

0 Replies

Universal education...apparently, in depressing couterpoise to your founder's hopes for it, a dismal failure.

0 Replies

Interesting read.

0 Replies

It should surprise no one that both Democrats and Republicans are ducking this issue.

In the first place, this--the increase in terrorism as a result of this stupid war, decreasing rather than increasing our security--has been advanced by people all over the net, and for years. If you go back and check the Anti-War Movement/US, UN and Iraq threads, you'll see not only that people here have been saying that this has only increased our risk from terrorism, but that many people here were predicting this outcome before the war. You can see this at many, many, many discussion sites and blogs.

In the second place, both Democrats and Republicans fell all over one another to show their "patriotism" and "resolve" in signing up for this idiotic fiasco. The last thing any politician is willing to admit is that he or she was wrong. The more so as their M.O. is to make soothing noises and assure us not only that they have all the answers, but that they have everything under control. Therefore, even those Democrats and Republicans who are now critical of how the war is being handled, and even those who now admit that it was a mistake, want to say that they were acting in good faith, and that they were mislead by an incompetent or venal administration and their fall guys at NSA and Central Intelligence.

None of them, absolutely none of them intends to stand forward and admit not only that they may not be able to protect us from the consequences of decades of American international hubris and bullying--absolutely none of the will every publicly admit that they have, even if only through omission in not opposing this war, made us far, far more "un-safe." It just ain't in the game to deal in that kind of honesty. If ever any of these jokers admit that they've screwed the pooch, bumbled the phoney "war on terror" by allowing this dangerous, costly and counter-productive war in Iraq--it will only after they've been dragged kicking and screaming into the glare of inescapable truth.

0 Replies

gustavratzenhofer wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But he won't, because he'll never ask the rich to sacrifice (and they are the ones who would have to sacrifice the most)

Tell me how.

A wartime economy demands greater control over resource production and allocation than is currently preferred by Bushes' 'base.' It also requires raising the capital gains and the marginal tax rate on the richest members of society; when I said they have the 'most to lose,' I was speaking in terms of the only thing that matters to the rich (and Bushco): money.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I can't believe you guys are so naive as to believe that something titled the National Intelligence Estimate might have some classified information in it that needs not become publicized.

The public and, more importantly, our enemies do not need to know every detail of our intelligance gathering. This report was leaked and later made public. Snood, do you really beleive that this latest report is helping the Bush administration? In any way?

These Bushwackers are so very typical of the extreme liberal hatred of our military, that they WANT to see our soldiers DEAD!!! Then they can accuse GW of being the cause for our Soldiers death and they can feel better about themselves.

Therefore, any information that can help the enemy kill more of our soldiers, they want it made public. This is the same scum who acted similiarly during Viet Nam.

Since they are unable to communicate a convincing argument or alternative to GW's failed strategy in Iraq, they resort to this lowest form of what they think is "patriotic" duty.

why don't you give that tired horseshit a rest....

0 Replies

set wrote

Quote:

None of them, absolutely none of them intends to stand forward and admit not only that they may not be able to protect us from the consequences of decades of American international hubris and bullying--absolutely none of the will every publicly admit that they have, even if only through omission in not opposing this war, made us far, far more "un-safe." It just ain't in the game to deal in that kind of honesty. If ever any of these jokers admit that they've screwed the pooch, bumbled the phoney "war on terror" by allowing this dangerous, costly and counter-productive war in Iraq--it will only after they've been dragged kicking and screaming into the glare of inescapable truth.

I think so, set.

0 Replies

Re: The Iraq dilemma that both Reps and Dems are shirking

Quote:

<snip>

Thus, the report highlights the essential dilemma Iraq poses for the war on terror: staying fuels the al-Qaeda-inspired movement, creating a net increase in the terrorist threat; while leaving Iraq in chaos would also worsen the threat.

The Democrats tend to focus on the first part of the dilemma; the administration focuses on the second part. They are both right (and wrong) -- and the debate would be greatly served by focusing on the dilemma itself."

The solution to this dilemma is actually quite simple. We must abandon this Quixotic attempt at establishing democracy in Iraq and set up a dictator to run the country. Preferably, he should be a pro-US dictator, of the Shah of Iran or Pervez Musharraf type, but in any event he should be a dictator.

After all, the thing that is keeping American troops in Iraq is not the war on terrorism, it is the futile quest to transform Iraq into a western-style democracy. If the US valued the establishment of order over the establishment of democratic institutions, the troops could withdraw in a couple of weeks. All that is needed is the re-establishment of a dictatorship.

0 Replies

The Iraq dilemma that both Reps and Dems are shirking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know