Iraq: we won, now let's leave

About the topic of this thread: I don't like Tetster's approach. One of my major reasons for supporting the Democrats is that I oppose government by Orwellian soundbites. Now a Democrat is suggesting an Orwellian soundbite to get the US out of Irak: "Victory is retreat." I cannot endorse that -- not that I have a better idea.

0 Replies

The one advantage that I see in Tester's approach is that it might help mitigate the inevitable "stab in the back" charge that conservatives are preparing to unleash as soon as a Democratic president orders the troops home. If President H. R. Clinton can convince the majority of people that we actually won the war, it will make the conservative lament that "we would've won if it hadn't been for those damned traitorous liberals" much less effective.

0 Replies

The stab in the back legend and the "we won" legend would both be lies. What would be the advantage of the Democratic lie over the Republican lie?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The stab in the back legend and the "we won" legend would both be lies. What would be the advantage of the Democratic lie over the Republican lie?

It's all about the votes in November...

If you let the other side get their emotional lie out there first, you might take the high road but you lose the high ground.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If you let the other side get their emotional lie out there first, you might take the high road but you lose the high ground.

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't wash. For one thing, if Democrats postulate that "we won the war in Iraq, so we can go home now", they admit Bush's decision in 2003 was a success. How is this an argument for voting Democratic in the first place?

Apart from this, even if I assume you are right about the effectiveness of the "we won" lie, it still doesn't work for me. This wouldn't be "my side"''s lie. It would be your side's lie. Not being a Democrat or a Republican a priori, I find one side's lies just as appalling as the other's.

0 Replies

What home? The USA has built plenty big new military bases there. The USA is there to stay.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If you let the other side get their emotional lie out there first, you might take the high road but you lose the high ground.

This was a political excuse for bad behavior. Not directed at you personally Thomas.

The majority of voters are going to be affected by sound bites.
"We achieved what was voted on." sounds better than being attacked with the label of "cowards". Look to the Swift boat ads to see how effective lies and half truths can be sometimes. It creates a perception that can't be defeated with long winded explanations of the truth.

"We won 3 years ago but the GOP insisted on keeping troops there" is the perception by declaring victory.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

parados wrote:

If you let the other side get their emotional lie out there first, you might take the high road but you lose the high ground.

This was a political excuse for bad behavior. Not directed at you personally Thomas.

Sure. And my response to this is: Why make excuses for bad behavior at all? Political or otherwise?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The stab in the back legend and the "we won" legend would both be lies. What would be the advantage of the Democratic lie over the Republican lie?

About a hundred fewer dead Americans per month, I reckon.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

About a hundred fewer dead Americans per month, I reckon.

No, because America retreats from Iraq in both scenarios we're discussing. In Jon Tester's scenario, Democrats tell a "we won" lie before America retreats; in Karl Rove's scenario, Republicans tell a "stab in the back" lie after it does. The lies people tell in the process of retreating seem to be the only difference between the scenarios.

Perhaps you are making the unstated assumption that the "we won" lie would speed up the retreat from Iraq. If so, I see no reason to buy this assumption.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

What home? The USA has built plenty big new military bases there. The USA is there to stay.

Interesting point you made there, McTag.

What, indeed, could be the purpose of these bases if not to house a permanent garrison in Iraq?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

What, indeed, could be the purpose of these bases if not to house a permanent garrison in Iraq?

I'm pretty sure that's what the Bush administration intended to do with them. But for the successor administration, it could be just another sunk cost with no use at all.

0 Replies

Which begs another question: who controls US foreign policy?

Could the Congress prevail on the Administration to withdraw every American from Iraq, against the wishes of the Pentagon and the "industrial-military complex"? Do you think they will?

I don't.

0 Replies

Those who advocate leaving Iraq forget the reasons why we invaded in the first place, which was...er

ok sorry prompt here somebody

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
About a hundred fewer dead Americans per month, I reckon.

No, because America retreats from Iraq in both scenarios we're discussing. In Jon Tester's scenario, Democrats tell a "we won" lie before America retreats; in Karl Rove's scenario, Republicans tell a "stab in the back" lie after it does. The lies people tell in the process of retreating seem to be the only difference between the scenarios.

Perhaps you are making the unstated assumption that the "we won" lie would speed up the retreat from Iraq. If so, I see no reason to buy this assumption.

But you are not the normal American voter Thomas. That is the point. From the political standpoint this isn't about telling the truth to those few thousands paying attention. This is about framing the perception of the tens of millions that will only see an ad or two during the next season of American Idol.

Most Americans don't want the truth. They want a hearty pat on the back and someone to tell them they did a good job even after they f**** it up beyond repair. Americans prefer to shop while Baghdad burns. Any attempt to make them feel remorse while they suck on their Orange Julius and tote their 10 bags out of the mall would be political suicide.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Perhaps you are making the unstated assumption that the "we won" lie would speed up the retreat from Iraq. If so, I see no reason to buy this assumption.

One good reason to "buy" that assumption is that the Republicans have shown absolutely no inclination to leave for any reason. Add to that the neo-con agenda to build bases in southwest Asia (c.f., McT's observation), there is good reason to assume that such a method is a speedier method of withdrawl on a scale of "any time at all" versus "never."

0 Replies

parados wrote:

This is about framing the perception of the tens of millions that will only see an ad or two during the next season of American Idol.

Most Americans don't want the truth.

Well, that's what I mean by "Orwellian", and that's what I reject. I am a libertarian, which means that my fundamental political values are closer to the Republicans' than to the Democrats'. If I condoned pragmatic Orwellian lies like Tester's "victory is retreat", I'd be supporting George Bush. But I never have, even though it would have made my life on A2K much easier. It would be nice to see a few liberals with the same attitude, but it's probably naive to hope for it.

Setanta wrote:

One good reason to "buy" that assumption is that the Republicans have shown absolutely no inclination to leave for any reason. Add to that the neo-con agenda to build bases in southwest Asia (c.f., McT's observation), there is good reason to assume that such a method is a speedier method of withdrawl on a scale of "any time at all" versus "never."

I agree that the neocon Republicans have no inclination to leave for any reason. I disagree (assuming that's what you think) that the "we won" meme would give them such a reason. Neocons may be crazy, but they're not dumb. They'll see through it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Perhaps you are making the unstated assumption that the "we won" lie would speed up the retreat from Iraq. If so, I see no reason to buy this assumption.

I think Tester's position is the only one that Republicans conceivably could adopt. Whether it has any chance of being adopted is, of course, unknown. But then, anything's possible. After all, who would have guessed three years ago that the majority of Americans today would be opposed to the war?

0 Replies

Okay, let's assume for the sake of the discussion that Democrats and Republicans agree "we won". How is that not an argument for voting Republican in 2008? How is that not an argument for President Giuliani starting similarly "successful" wars against Iran and North Korea?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I agree that the neocon Republicans have no inclination to leave for any reason. I disagree (assuming that's what you think) that the "we won" meme would give them such a reason. Neocons may be crazy, but they're not dumb. They'll see through it.

Well, with the evidence of the Shrub, one could reasonably argue against the proposition that no neo-cons are "dumb." However, the point is dealing with the electorate, which you seem intent on ignoring. The neo-cons are not the majority, and neither are the Democrats--the voters are, and they cannot be relied upon to vote a straight party ticket. So both sides need to appeal to the electorate. It doesn't matter if the "meme" in question appeals to neo-cons, it only matters if it appeals to the voters.

0 Replies

Iraq: we won, now let's leave

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know