Separating Personal Interest from the Public Good

[domer]

A ripe issue now on the table is whether President Bush in craven fashion will pursue his goal of "winning" in Iraq, on which he has placed the whole of his foreign policy and the whole of his personal legacy, or whether he will listen to AND HEAR the competent voices telling him that he is in denial in that effort, which he will certainly "lose," if it he hasn't already, based upon the plain facts on the ground.

[Michael Tee]

Can Bush admit that he made a disastrous error in judgment resulting in 600,000 Iraqi and 3,000 American deaths, exposed his country's potentially fatal weakness in projecting its military power in land operations and cost what will ultimately run into trillions of dollars at a time when America is about to face unprecedented foreign economic competition?

I would say no.  It's not in his makeup, and a lot of his inability to admit mistakes and change course is tied up in his psychodynamics, which makes him almost a tragic figure.  Even less can he admit that he lied to the American people to build support for his totally unnecessary war.

The plug will be pulled eventually, but someone else will have to pull it.  Barring a complete collapse of the U.S. dollar (already in substantial decline) he should be able to continue to soldier on in Iraq at the expense of other men's lives and the taxpayer's fortunes, until the expiry of his term of office.

There are fascinating issues arising out of this dilemma, one of course involving the nature and legitmacy of nationalism, another being the constitution and internal dynamics of basically non-Hellenic societies, specifically in the Arab world and their survivability in the 21st century.  I think this stuff requires a whole book to deal with adequately, not a series of posts in a debating club.

[domer]

I disagree Michael about deferring to a book: we're careening forward in our jalopy, tattered and somewhat inlegible map in hand, as we approach a five-point intersection, where we have to make a decision, a right decision for our gas is low and danger lurks down some (all) of the paths.

[BT]

Leaving Iraq without a stable government in place would be a horrendous decision.

The new dem leadership will have to decide whether an early withdrawal without the above goal being met is a worthy national goal. And with that decision comes the accountability.

The new congress  has tools in hand to force an early withdrawal. Will they use them? I don't think they will.

[Michael Tee]

That's very well put, domer.  Unfortunately for you, what you really need is a radically different driver and there aren't any in the picture.  Short answer is you might as well flip a coin because NOBODY'S got any answers.  At some point all the Americans are going to be pulled out and nobody knows what'll happen then either.

I've been in situations where the status quo was unacceptable but no satisfactory path out presented itself.  The key decision was, get out of the bad situation and let tomorrow take care of tomorrow.  It worked for me.  The unknown future was never as bad as the intolerable present.

To me the secret of conservative power is fear.  Fear of anyone different (gays, commies, Arabs) and fear of the unknown - - what if Saddam gives his unknown WMD to unknown terrorists who will do unknown things with them to us?  that sort of thing.  Nothing is ever specific - - WHICH WMD, WHAT terrorists etc.  Let US deal with THEM because otherwise very bad things will happen to you.  WE can protect you, THOSE OTHERS cannot.

In Iraq, it plays out the same - - WE can't leave Iraq because terrorists will win. Because terrorists will own the oil wells.  Because horrible communal massacres will break out.  Always, support us because if you don't . . . .

Maybe the first thing America has to do is conquer its fear.  Take America back from the fear-mongers.  When bad things DO happen, deal with them and make the best of the situation and move on.  Right now, as I see it, you are paralyzed by your fears and locked into a pattern of self-defeating and counter-productive actions.

[domer]

*I* am not focusing on withdrawal, at least not now. While there may be strong and widespread political support for such a move, perhaps even when leaving the issues of security and stability unattended, I am not prepared to take that step unless and until the sober judgment of our best minds, including members of the ISG, tell us that in their best judgment we will salvage more by leaving than staying. It is possible, tragically, that this war may require unheard of purgation (unrestricted civil war) to get all the pieces, more or less, to fall into place in a workable climax. That is a judgment beyond my knowledge. It could be, and I don't know personally, that the very logic of this conflict in a sense mandates a bloody conclusion. That, of course, implicates us in two respects: aren't we responsible for unleashing these dogs of war, and what would a chaotic and unpredictable tumult mean to stability in the region and our prospects in the larger war on terror?

[BT]

I'm sure it will devolve into a regional conflict. Pitting Shiite against Sunni fighting over pieces of turf is better than a unified islamic front focused on the west.

But if the handwringers are upset about 600k iraqi dead , how will they feel about 10 times that many islamic casualties?

I don't think they will be that happy.

Hopefully the dem congress will avoid that day of reckoning. That is my best guess anyway.


 

[Plane]

A ripe issue now on the table is whether President Bush in craven fashion will pursue his goal of "winning" in Iraq, on which he has placed the whole of his foreign policy and the whole of his personal legacy, or whether he will listen to AND HEAR the competent voices telling him that he is in denial in that effort, which he will certainly "lose," if it he hasn't already, based upon the plain facts on the ground.

"...whether he will listen to AND HEAR the competent voices telling him that he is in ..."

What makes those adviseing withdrawal the competant ones?

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems to me that getting out of Iraq without a civil war making things worse is likely to be impossible. The president of the US can only control the number of Americans that will get killed in this mess directly by taking them out of harm's way.

I suppose the US might be able to make it harder for Iraqis to kill one another quite so efficiently by helping to shut off the number of arms getting into Iraq, but this is minimal.

Sending more troops might work, but I don't think we actually have enough troops, without a draft, and I don't favor that. Nor do I believe that Americans should be called on to risk their lives or die for what was a major screw-up not of their making.

It really does not matter to the solution whether Juniorbush lied to get into this, or just was, along with the CIA and others, totally incompetent.

The main intent should be to save as many lives as possible. I don't see where Juniorbush is likely to be much better at cleaning up his mess than he was at creating it.

[Michael Tee]

I have several problems with this whole self-appointed policeman/referee thing. 

First of all, the unresolved internal conflicts of Iraq would have come to the boiling point sooner or later.  Saddam wouldn't have lasted forever and whatever means the Iraqis would see fit to resolve their differences would have been employed anyway.  This is their business and no one else's - - somebody will come out on top and if nobody does, it is still up to them to make it happen because it is their country and they are the ones who have to live in the chaos.  It may be that some or all parties prefer chaos to submitting to the other side or risking it.  Again - - that's their right to choose their path to heaven or hell.

Second, you are an interested party with your own agenda.  There is no way you can pose as the Good Democracy Fairy and be above the fray.  Your actions will always be self-interested and therefore any side that you support will be attacked by all other factions as illegitimate.  It is a contradiction in terms to suppose that your can install a legitmate government by illegitimate means. 

Third you have virtually no competent individuals who can broker a consensus in Iraq if the Iraqis themselves cannot do it.  These people are not ignorant or primitive.  They don't organize their society the same way that you organize yours, but they are the inheritors of an ancient culture and way of life that has worked for them for many centuries before America was discovered and they are not likely to change their ways now because you tell them to.  They will pick and choose which Western ideas to implement and how to integrate them into their own lives.  They are very skilled in deal-making, forging alliances, etc. and if THEY can't resolve their own internal conflicts, there is very little chance - - zero in fact - - that any of you can.  None of you know the terrain like they do.

[BT]

Third you have virtually no competent individuals who can broker a consensus in Iraq if the Iraqis themselves cannot do it.

They can't do it NOW. Who says given the proper time they can't in the future. US troops are buying the  Iraqi govt  time, until such time  as they can buy their own. You and other handwringers want to remove that option. 

Real politics says if you have the votes, you can do that. But if you do, Iraqi blood will be on your hands.

That is the reality. And the price of that reality is steep. Live with it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They can't do it NOW. Who says given the proper time they can't in the future. US troops are buying the  Iraqi govt  time, until such time  as they can buy their own. You and other handwringers want to remove that option.

Real politics says if you have the votes, you can do that. But if you do, Iraqi blood will be on your hands.

That is the reality. And the price of that reality is steep. Live with it.
=============================================================
The fact is that NONE of us has a chance of determining what the government actually does. At most, we get to vote every two years, and the chance that our teensy little vote won't actually make the difference.

So there will be no blood on any of our hands.

[Plane]

So there will be no blood on any of our hands.
 

[][][][][][][][][][]

I disagree, many of the killing sprees in Iraq are staged for our edifacation.

Our reaction instructs our opposition .

It is a very interdependant and dynamic situation.

[Mucho]

Third you have virtually no competent individuals who can broker a consensus in Iraq if the Iraqis themselves cannot do it.

They can't do it NOW. Who says given the proper time they can't in the future. US troops are buying the  Iraqi govt  time, until such time  as they can buy their own. You and other handwringers want to remove that option. 

Real politics says if you have the votes, you can do that. But if you do, Iraqi blood will be on your hands.

That is the reality. And the price of that reality is steep. Live with it.

Plenty of Iraqi blood is already on your hands right now and you dont seem to mind at all.

[Universe Prince]

As best I can determine, the situation in Iraq is such that no matter when we pull troops out, Iraq will be ripe for influence from Iran, leaving Iran in a position of political leadership for the entire Middle East. Other than doing to Iran what we did to Iraq, I see no way to stop this from occurring. Leaving Iraq may result in a dramatic rise in urban warfare regardless of whether Iraqis are trained as security forces. And we have no guarantee that the political constructs we have orchestrated there will remain long enough to establish the political stability in Iraq that we desire. The whole thing is a mess.

I think we are short-sighted if we try to make this about President Bush's personal interest. Certainly that will play into the situation, but his is not the only interest involved. There are the interests of the insurgents, the members of the Iraqi government, the President and Prime Minister of Iraq in particular, and the President of Iran. So even if Bush's personal interest could be taken out of the equation, I have doubts that would lead us to an amicable resolution of events.