Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, has written the article on Iraq that sums up the danger of losing better than Pulitzer winner Lawrence Wright or the Washington Post’s Thomas Ricks. Kerrey’s is the best summary written for a Democrat I have seen on why we should stand and fight in Iraq. Please read it in full.You should be reading the entire article. Here are key paragraphs:
The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."
5 comments:
Okay Dad, I read the full piece.
Bob Kerrey definitely "gets it" - as long as you define "it" as the latest iteration in the long and barren series of Neocon justifications for maintaining, extending, and even "surging" our military occupation of Iraq.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to lay out the many factual and logical errors in this piece - or in the thinking of the Neocons generally. Perhaps we can discuss over the phone some time.
I will simply note the following: (1) A majority of the American public believe our occupation of Iraq is destined to fail; (2) 60% want to set a date certain for the start of US troop withdrawals; (3) Roughly the same number believe invading Iraq in the first place was a mistake; (4) A solid majority of Iraqis want us to go home, immediately.
In this context, what is the point of complaining about the "liberals" who complain about the war? That is a meta-debate. The American and Iraqi people have made up their minds, are sick of the occupation, and want the US out.
Bush and his diehard 33%, WSJ editors and Kerrey included, will be brought to heel on this eventually. They have demonstrated time and time again that they lack the resources and the willpower to do anything substantive about this mess, and no one listens any more to what they say.
Which in my opinion, incidentally, is all for the best. Consistent with the intuition of the majority of Americans and Iraqis, I believe the longer we maintain our occupation of Iraq the worse it will be for us and the people of Iraq, and the better it will be for our enemies, Al Qaeda included.
Aloha,
Derek
Derek:
"A solid majority of Iraqis want us to go home, immediately." Really? The closest polling data I could find to this is that 53% of the Iraqi people say the security situation in Iraq will improve if the U.S. leaves. Yet if we break down the results by sectarian group, only a majority of Shia (62%) so believe--not Sunni, not Kurds. Why Shia? Because they are in the majority, and will use the absence of American troops, they believe, to wipe out the Sunni.
That, to me, looks like the start of a bloodbath, hardly an "improved" security situation. And the bloodbath turns Sunni areas into an al-Qaeda homeland, and brings Shia areas under Iran's influence. We lose twice.
I recognize your thinking makes sense if you believe we have already lost the Iraq war. But we haven't, as Kerrey understands.
Galen
That, to me, looks like the start of a bloodbath, hardly an "improved" security situation.
Dad, innocent Iraqis are dying at a rate of 3000 per month - now. That's the equivalent of one 9/11 every month, in a country with 10% of the US population. If you think that's NOT a bloodbath then I have to wonder what criteria you are working with.
Obviously, having been wrong about every other aspect of the Iraq occupation does not rob you and the Neocons of the right to make further predictions. It just means that many fewer people are now paying attention.
Aloha,
Derek
I erred by writing “start of a bloodbath,” for the reasons you give. Too many people are dying in Iraq today. The goal of the surge, which I support, is to reduce violence. And my poorly-articulated point is this—freed of an American troop presence, many Shia would like to use the full power of the state to kill Sunnis, which I fear would draw Sunnis outside Iraq into a defense of their brethren. Violence would escalate, strengthening al-Qaeda, something Kerrey says Democrats cannot ignore.
I’m at a loss to understand your name-calling. When I encountered this in academia in earlier years, I interpreted the name-calling as a substitute for research and fact. I don’t consider myself a Neocon, a group with which you place me, and would prefer to define myself. I believe in the vision of democracy put forward by Michael Mandelbaum, a close friend and colleague of Tom Friedman. Furthermore, “Neocon” is a pejorative contraction in the way “Red” or “Commie” or “Pinko” substitutes for Communist. In this connection, how do you feel about the hostility that emanates from liberals, which I mentioned here. There has been much hatred from the Right as well, something I also deplore.
Aloha, Dad
Hi Dad,
Neoconservatism, as I mean to use the term, as well as its common contraction, "Neocon".
The Iraq War has been a neoconservative enterprise from start to finish. I do not consider you a Neocon either, but to the extent that you identify with their Iraq policy, you are aligning yourself with the Neocons' foreign policy agenda, adopting their goals, and advancing their arguments.
The Iraq War and occupation is a big deal. You cannot rob me of the language I need to describe the prevailing forces and underlying ideology which brought us into this fruitless war, and have brought Iraq itself to the brink of disaster, to the detriment of American and Iraqi lives and treasure, and contrary to the best interests and expressed wishes of the electorates in both countries.
There are reasons why nations find themselves plunged into stupid, irrational, counterproductive conflicts; these reasons have names; and using those names is not hate speech.
Aloha,
Derek
Post a Comment