The Democrats’ antiwar strategy: wishing will make it so
The antiwar faction of the Democratic Party seems troubled. How, when things looked so bright back in November of last year, could it have all gone so horribly wrong?
It’s not that they’re about to give up pressuring those swing Republicans—fearful for their jobs—to pressure Bush (not fearful for his) on Iraq. It’s just that they’re not seeing much light at the end of that particular tunnel any more.
Many of those in the antiwar movement have been quick to lose whatever faith they may have once had in our ability to wage the war in Iraq, and slow to have it revived even in the face of some recent good news on that score. That’s their prerogative, of course, and reasonable minds can differ. But their faith in their own ability to just wish for enough antiwar votes to override a certain Presidential veto has remained remarkably intact, despite that fact that such an expectation has always been unrealistic. The numbers have just never been there.
This recent piece by Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein says as much:
…the best the Democrats could do after several months of pressure tactics was, in that July showdown, to get four Senate GOP-ers to back a timeline for troop withdrawal, leaving them seven votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster and political light years away from the 67 needed to overcome a veto.
Gerstein’s article demonstrates how the Democratic Party has recently been an excellent example of political short-sightedness. Gerstein himself shows the sort of narrow thinking characteristic of political strategists in general: they often can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s the sort of attitude that sunk the supposed mandate that Newt Gingrich and company thought they had back in the mid-90s, a kind of puffed-up hubris-by-election that tends to short-circuit whatever lingering common sense those in politics might retain.
Politicians do not have fragile egos; anyone with that particular affliction either does not enter the political fray, or leaves it early. But that means that politicians are very susceptible to thinking they have a greater mandate and greater power than they actually have. Was the election of ’06 really as strongly antiwar and pro-Democratic as its Democratic beneficiaries seem to think, or were they voted in partly as a backlash against what was seen as Republican corruption? And have the antiwar poll responders been split between those who favor pacifism and diplomacy and those who would like a harder and more effective line in the fighting?
Read Gerstein’s piece and see whether, amidst the all strategizing and the obligatory Bush-demonizing, you can find any acknowledgment of the fact that there are huge and important issues of policy rather than mere tactics involved here, and that maybe, just maybe, the antiwar Democrats are not going to win their fight because they don’t have good arguments to persuade opponents that their stance is the correct one—“correct,” that is, not as in “likely to save one’s political skin,” but rather “correct” as in “well-reasoned and sound.”
As far as saving one’s skin goes, I’m well aware that there are few Profiles in Courage in Congress, and that political expediency is indeed a potent motivator on both sides. But it’s not even clear that a vote with the Democrats would be all that popular in swing districts where moderate Republican members of Congress would tend to reside.
Democratic goals may be not so much to end the war as to get on record—and get Republicans on record—as being pro or con withdrawal in order to position themselves properly for the 2008 election. In that respect, the deed has been accomplished.
Gerstein’s article has almost no mention of anything other than tactics. Gerstein admits that the ill-advised ad dissing Petraeus increased visibility for MoveOn and generated a buzz, but acknowledges that’s not such a good thing for anyone except MoveOn. And then he writes:
….that goes to show a fatal flaw in the [Leftist antiwar] movement’s MO ”” it has elevated its own narrow constituency interests above the good of the party.
Interesting point, and one common to extreme wings of both parties, I might add.
But I’d say Gerstein doesn’t go far enough. The antiwar movement has another fatal flaw, which is that it has elevated its own narrow constituency interests above the good of the nation.
This is evidenced by the remarkable lack of attention that the antiwar movement has paid to the consequences of an Iraq pullout for the US itself, and the failure to suggest a realistic alternative way to handle Iraq at this point.
A second fatal flaw is that the Democratic Party in general has fallen prey to the narcissistic belief that whatever it wishes to be, will be—mathematics and reason notwithstanding. There doesn’t seem to ever have been much of a chance that the movement’s members would capture enough votes to override a Presidential veto. But they have acted as though they could, and led their mathematically-challenged Leftist wing on to believe it would be so, if only they clicked their heels hard enough, loudly enough, and often enough.
Cue Dusty Springfield:
“Just wishing and hoping and thinking and praying
planning and dreaming
his kisses will start…
that won’t get you into his heart
so if your thinking how great true love is
all you gotta do…..
Tinkerbell’s light is fading, and has almost gone out, and Peter turns to the audience and says, “She’s going to die unless we do something. Clap your hands! Clap your hands and say, ‘I believe in fairies!'” It’s wonderful to see all the children in the audience clapping their hands and shouting.
Tell it, girl.
The anti-wars have also raised their narrow constituency interests above that of the Iraqi people, as well as above that of Middle East peoples in general…
which is not to say I believe American lives ought ipso facto be sacrificed for Iraqi lives – but is to say, rather: humanitarian concern for the Iraqi people does deserve consideration inside the equation, and the anti-wars are not on the side of angels in this matter.
When morality and ethics come to be understood as “values,” that is to say, irrational preferences, then the choice of one public or private good over another is beyond reasonable discussion. This is the moral relativism which is the default mode of thinking among a majority of our intellectual and political elites. Since we cannot discuss rationally the merits of one vision of the good over another (say, of liberal democracy over islamist theocracy) then ALL THAT IS LEFT is the question of tactics for the achievement of (arbitrary) goals. The forest is missed for the trees because by definition there is no forest. . .in a very important sense, the anti-war democrats merely believe in their own cause; it is not right simply but right for them.
Just connect the dots:
Neo-
As always, great commentary. I have a different take-the Democrats see their free ride ending in January of 2009 and are not exactly happy about.
A Democratic President will be thrust on the horns of a dilemma upon taking office.
On the one hand, the base will demand an instant withdrawal of US troops. Failure to do so will invoite a challenge from the Left in 2012. On the other hand, a massively destabilized Middle East, triggered by a withdrawal that, in retrospect, turns out to be a huge strategic disaster would not only kill any shot at a second term, but discredit Democrats for a couple of election cycles at least.
The only way to avoid this dilemma is to get the troops withdrawn under Bush’s watch so that they can blame the consequences on him.
once more with feeling:
From Peter Wehner in Contentions
I might vote for a Democrat if they’d shed their ugly, freaky, foaming-at-the-mouth far-Left wing and stop pandering to it all the time. A Democrat victory would give those very people a huge injection of political clout similar to what they enjoyed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate. Once in my lifetime was enough. They have made enough inroads in culture and politics. Better they should remain a small, angry, frustrated, disenfranchised and discredited minority.
Even if the war turns full circle in Iraq, the die has been cast unfortunately. Not just talking about Dems, but many, many Indie voters as well have had it with this admininstration and the Right being so quick to back them at every turn. Dems are going to have to come to the middle, as will the right to garner votes. MoveOn was a temporary push to ignite the party and won’t be as visible in the 2008 election. They will have to retire the strategy, but the bias will remain. Just as the swiftboat strategy worked to back Bush in 04′, it will come back as a sore in 08 because it has to be retired. I say great. We have become too polar and most people are in the middle anyhow. Keeps everyone even minded, level headed and drowns out the extremes from both ends.
MartyH: I wrote a post on just that subject, here.
I would be completely in favor of a moderate Democrat taking the White House, but I do not think the Democrats remember history properly. Every election they have won since Nixon was based on the perceived corruption of a Republican president. Not opposition to a war, not on general principles. Every time the Dems run an “anti-war” candidate they get stomped thoroughly. The only thing they have going for them this time around is the level of distaste the general populace has for Bush, but I doubt it will give them enough leeway to allow a dove into office.
Pingback:Sister Toldjah
And what reaction does a truculent child have when their wish is denied or only deferred? They turn, often violently, on the source of their frustration. For many (especially in the comments)at FDL, ThinkProgress, et. al., they will trash Reid and Pelosi, but their true rage is toward the nation itself, and all the rest of the people (us) who “just don’t understand.” Actually, it is often directed toward the mere idea of the existence of any nation, or national (gasp) legitimacy at all.
This brings to mind some of Bill Whittle’s essays. Not for length(thank God) but for depth. Thank you.
“….that goes to show a fatal flaw in the [Leftist antiwar] movement’s MO – it has elevated its own narrow constituency interests above the good of the party.”
And I suggest that the Democratic leadership has likewise elevated its own narrow constituency interests above the good of the country.
Neo,
Oh, dear. What you fail to acknowledge is that there is no “anti-war” faction of the Democratic Party. On the fact that the war is wrong and needs to end they are in perfect agreement. Flawed, yes, for sure. Unable to get any mandate under current political conditions, yes. But what you Repuclican holdouts don’t want to admit is the sea change about to take place over the next year.
I think you’ll find plenty of unity when the country finally steps up to bat. I know you don’t want to think about that right now, but don’t despair. There’s always the next six months to rally behind George’s Folly.
Polprof: Thanks. You get it, and I hope your students do.
As discussed in my earlier post. The whole MoveOn debacle has now brought a debate on the floor of the Senate about condemning those actions formally. Interestingly, and this brings me to what Neo said about extremes from both sides, Boxer wants to add to a resolution condemning MoveOn, ANY slam against someone who has served in the military, alluding to the Swifboaters and those who attacked Cleland. One needs to remember that they ALL need to be condemned for attacking a person’s patriotism.
“George’s Folly.”
Thank you, Jimmy, for perfectly expressing the point of neo’s post. You don’t care about political stablity in the Mideast. You don’t care about Iraqis struggling, sometimes with fatal results, to emerge from a morass and establish some sort of representative democracy. You don’t care that a weakened US emboldens a nuclear Iran. “Screw them,” in the apposite words of one of your side’s leading spokesmen.
And why your barely concealed glee? Because it’s “George’s Folly.” American troops die? George’s Folly. Another Iraqi politician assasinated? George’s Folly. Sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and massive bloodshed in the wake of a precipitous US withdrawal? George’s Folly, leading to a “sea change” and sweet, sweet political power.
My apologies, Jimmy – I had forgotten the left’s nuanced view of foreign policy. After all, what do a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis matter when Hillary stands ready for her coronation?
MoveOn ad measure by Cornyn passed with half of Dems voting for it. Boxer counter resolution condemning all attack ads against military split along party lines and shot down.
This may seem like a win, but I think it could actually work against the right. It is important however to stand against the move on ad.
Laura, you seem to be suggesting that no one can say anything that may impune a person’s patriotism. I’m sorry, but I can’t agree that any one particular subject is off limits. There is a difference between gratuitous attacks and substantive attacks.
While I realize you find the swiftboaters to be without merit, others disagree. Kerry has YET to release his military records as he promised, so he did little to refute the claims made.
On the other hand, is there anyone who really thinks General Petraeus intends to betray us?
Tap, if you were to watch the debate on the Hill, you might think differently.
And, further, more people voted on the ad resolution than did the Webb bill yesterday. That’s gonna hurt. Priorities? Making sure you’re there to vote on a resolution attacking an ad, and not bothering to vote at all on a bill about our troops is a very bad mistake.
Let’s just see how people will react. The fodder provided by the ad only added credibility to Patreaus’ testimony on the Hill. All that ground could be lost when it appears as if more people on the Hill are concerned with the ad than the war. Big mistake.
Are you saying watching the debate on the hill is going to change my mind about the Moveon ad or about the swiftboaters?
Okay, even though I don’t find the two cases at all equivalent, I can see why someone on the left would want to try to put the swiftboat efforts on the same level as the Moveon ad. The moveon ad is indefensible, so, instead of either defending it or condemning it, some would rather talk about the swifties.
But I couldn’t understand conflating the Cornyn resolution with the Webb bill. So I looked around. I see that this started at Kos and Huffington post, never mentioning one without the other. They are working themselves into quite a tizzy about it.
Yes, it may be true that “The fodder provided by the ad only added credibility to Patreaus’ testimony on the Hill.”
This has nothing to do with the Webb bill, and I don’t think that the attempt to fuse them (the Webb bill, the Cornyn resolution and the Boxer resolution) together to form some sort of picture is going to go anywhere. *shrug*
The Cornyn resolution is about a clear-cut case, something no one wants to defend. The Boxer resolution is not. The Webb bill has not a dang thing to do with either.
Laura-
The MoveOn ad is different than the Swift Boat attacks because the target is in a different class. John Kerry and Max Cleland are politicians, not a general leading troops in war.
Fast forward 4 years. If General Petreaus were Candidate Petreaus running for office, then the ad would not have been out of bounds. But it is out of bounds today because we want to keep our serving generals out of the political process for a lot of reasons.
Tap-
Laura’s point is that our representatives favor trivialties over important matters. Her evidence is that the MoveOn ad vote (a minor matter) had more voters than the Webb amendment (an important matter). Another possible expanation is that Congress people only cast their votes when they matter. If they knew which way the Webb Amendment was going, maybe they decided to not cast a vote because it did not matter.
Marty H, and Tap,
You and I might see it that way. However, any momentum gained by the mere fact that the moveon ad was there in the first place may certainly get cancelled out by what you say marty about the actual vote process.
It’s about perceptions, that’s all I’m sayin’
Dang, my last comment disappeared. I’ll try one more time.
My point is that attacking a wartime general is NOT trivial. Particularly when that attack comes from within. Particularly when that attack appears to be motivated by a desire to see us NOT win this war. Particularly when that attack is aimed at the general for daring to claim that we have had some military success and might even have more. They attacked him for trying to do his job successfully. And this attack did not come from the enemy. It came from within.
The fact that they condemned this on the same day that, amongst all the other things they did not vote on, they did not vote to pass Webbs bill, means nothing. Those that wanted it to pass will be unhappy either way. Those that didn’t, will not. Those that are noncommittal won’t be thinking ‘boy, they better not have accomplished anything else on this day’.
What the Kos and Huffington people apparently don’t realize is that the only way it makes sense to conflate these things is if you’re thinking from one point of view. How can we get out of this war NOW, regardless of the consequences? THEN these are all part of the same issue for you. We attacked the general, didn’t work. We tryed to limit troops, didn’t work. WHAT do we have to do to lose this war and get out?!?
The only people who think like this are going to be just as angry howEVER the bill failed. They will be just as angry that the resolution passed on ANY day. And none of this means that the bill should have passed or the resolution should not.
And anyway, I’m less concerned with gaining or retaining ‘momentum’ from the moveon ad than I am with preventing any future such attacks by making them unacceptable.
I got an email today from another military family. All it said was this:
Son emailed to say, he’s done, out. Home in 3 months and getting out. Why the hell should I continue to do this when nobody gives a sh*&t about MY FAMILY, MY WIFE, MY KIDS? I’m done.
She attached this list:
Sanders (I)
Smith (R)
Sununu (R)
Hagel (R)
Coleman (R)
Snowe (R)
Collins (R)
“These are the only people from my party who gives a damn about whether my son gets to have a break”
In thinking about the war and who supports and who doesn’t, It’s important to remember that when the soldiers themselves feel that their mission is accomplished in Iraq and the goal post gets moved time and again, it creates a morale problem for them and their families. 1% of the population is fighting this war. That is reprehensible.
It has been suggested to me, as a mother of a soldier who posts here, that I am a whiner. I get that a lot, but only here. Why is that? I advocate for soldiers, families of soldiers and veterans. If you want to really understand why so many people can have serious doubts about the war, it takes more than a blanket statement about who might want to lose or not. In answering Bush’s question, “is it worth it?” From where I sit, sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Our mission: March 6, 2003
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush said in a March 6, 2003 Press Conference:
Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament … And our mission won’t change. Our mission is precisely what I just stated.
Mission defined March 6, 2003, Accomplished
Our Mission: March 17, 2003
In an Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003, Bush said:
… Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing … The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
Mission defined March 17, 2003, Accomplished
May 3, two days after his pronouncement aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush reiterated:
I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended
After the Mission had been Accomplished, the mission began to change. “Operation Iraqi Liberation” became “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” In a July 30, 2003 Press Conference, Bush said:
… The success of a free Iraq will also demonstrate to other countries in that region that national prosperity and dignity are found in representative government and free institutions … As freedom advances in the Middle East, those societies will be less likely to produce ideologies of hatred and produce recruits for terror. The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq…
By November, Bush’s “very clear” disarmament mission was fading. In comments to the “travel pool,” he said:
” … As you know, from the moment of liberating the country from Saddam Hussein … That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.”
By May of 2004, the mission had been more clearly redefined. Now Bush was saying, “… This country will finish what we have begun. We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission…
In a June 2, 2005 fundraising event for Jim Talent, Bush said:
… And now we’re standing with the government as they struggle against these suiciders. But they’re getting there. And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do. And then our troops are coming home, with the honor they earned. And the world will be better off with a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan in the broader Middle East…
Later that month, at the U.S. – European Union Summit, he said
… We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves … And that’s exactly the strategy that’s going to work. And it is going to work. And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace…
“The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country.” June 28, 2005
Yet another attempt to define the mission in Iraq. Two years later there has been no success in the “political process” or “Iraqis capable of defending themselves,” so Bush redefines the mission in a speech to Naval War College:
… Earlier this year, I laid out a new strategy for Iraq. I wasn’t pleased with what was taking place on the ground. I didn’t approve of what I was seeing. And so I called together our military and said, can we design a different strategy to succeed? And I accepted their recommendations. And this new strategy is different from the one were pursuing before. It is being led by a new commander, General David Petraeus — and a new ambassador, Ryan Crocker. It recognizes that our top priority must be to help the Iraqi government and its security forces protect their population from attack — especially in Baghdad, the capital. It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation — to build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and is an ally against the extremists in this war … the first mission is, succeed in Iraq
According to a December 19, 2006 article in WaPo, that wasn’t what happened:
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate…
… But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion … The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq — including al-Qaeda’s foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias — without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said…
Now we are hearing White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten saying that Bush wants to make
… it possible for his successor – whichever party that successor is from – to have a sustained presence in the Middle East … And have America continue to be a respected and influential power in the Middle East…
In a dead thread it is never wise to let the troll have the last word.
Agreed, OverGourd!
Tap, Petraeus was not “attacked” – his credibility was challenged. And Bush, lacking credibility himself, has from the beginning pushed him into the political arena, putting him in a senator’s office and allowing him to lobby congressman on behalf of the policy.
Besides just focusing on the cheesy tacky and puerile headline, has anyone bothered to refute any of the statements in the body text?
“deaths by car bombs don’t count”?
“assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front.”?
“We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.”?
What if those statements are true, would that make a difference in how Petraeus has characterized success of the surge in reducing violence to anyone? A general is not a god, he is accountable to the President, who is accountable to the citizenry – if anyone thinks he is not giving an accurate representation of the facts, that person has a constitutional right to publicly challenge him, God Bless America.
Either way, as Krugman pointed out the other day, polls show that neither the moveon ad nor Petraeus’ testimony had any measurable effect on people’s opinion of the war, so let’s just all *ahem* “move on,” shall we?
Laura, excellent post on the changing mission in Iraq. Reminded me of the theses which showed the administration gave at least 23 different rationales for the invasion.
No defined objective, and Americans overwhemingly want to get out but can’t agree on how without causing chaos in the aftermath – sounds like your basic quagmire to me.
I have to say I found Petraeus’ reply that “he didn’t know” if America was safer because of Iraq to be a refreshing bit of candor from someone of his stature in the debate.
Add that to Greenspan joining the “Its about Oil” club and I would say the doubters have some pretty formidable members in their ranks.
Troll? Next time you meet an American soldier on leave at an airport, you remember that you called one of their mothers a troll. If you’re man enough, tell HIM what you think. See how long it takes that strong American soldier to level you flat.
# OverGourd Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
In a dead thread it is never wise to let the troll have the last word.
# Talkinkamel Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Agreed, OverGourd!
Does “troll” mean to you guys anyone who disagrees with you? Laura has been really patient and respectful of the forum here in the face of the usual insults and denigrations hurled from the regulars, I haven’t seen anything she’s written that could be considered “baiting” or trying to intentionally derail the thread, descending into tit for tat name calling, etc.
What do people here think of Joe Biden’s ideas about a federalized system? I am fortunate enough to run my own business and in my office I have two televisions, one on CSPAN 2 almost all day and two computers, one for blog and one for work. I just watched an incredible debate on the Senate floor put forth by Biden and backed at least in words and interest by Warner. This, in my opinion, is a way to get things done. Anyhow, just wanted to know what others think about his ideas regarding how to help to stabilize Iraq.
Laura, with all due respect, being a mother (of a soldier or anyone else) doesn’t count for a goddamned thing in a policy discussion. It doesn’t give your arguments any authority, credibility, insight, or cogency that they don’t have independent of your maternity status.
Stop bringing it up. It’s embarrassing in any context outside of a Tupperware party.
Occam
With all due respect sir, I believe it does. You better believe that the home front, the hearth and the families at home while their loved ones serve in the war have an incredible amount of weight to the overall discussion of war. Tupperware party? I’m about as informed on the war as most sir. It’s my right and responsibility to be informed and invested. So, respectfully sir, I think that my voice and the thousands and thousands of military family voices have much to contribute.
Thanks
Or perhaps what you really intended to say is, “sit down, shut up and keep your kid in iraq until WE tell you it’s time to come home, you know, when WE decide on the mission.” Or perhaps, go bake some brownies and clean your house and leave the policy work, you know big man stuff, to all of us who know a little more about war than you do.”
The contributions of your voice are not in question, Laura, but rather the relevance of your contributions from the other end.
Sir, it should be in the interest of every American citizen to be aware and informed about the war. It should also be in the interest of every American the health and well-being of their US armed forces, is it not?
That said, who do you think sees the sacrifices made on a day to day basis? Who do you think communicates daily if lucky, with the soldiers and marines? The family. Who do you think is pretty keyed into the overall emotional and physical well being of the armed forces? Commanders yes, family members certainly.
So, if military family members tell you that their loved one is having difficulty, do you say to that member, “tell your loved one to suck it up?” The health of the military, as I see it and hear it daily from lots and lots of people sir, is indeed stressed. That, sir, has relevance in the overall discussion about policies of war in general and the armed forces in particular when you are talking about extended tours and non stop deployments.
So, respectfully sir, that perspective is indeed important. I try to communicate that in a sincere and respectful way because I believe it is incredibly important to shape the policy around what is REALISTIC in terms of military strength and national security objectives.
Thanks
Your voice has the same intrinsic weight as everyone else’s, no more, no less, and will accorded consideration in proportion to merit, not family circumstances.
And again with all due respect, unless you’re a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you’re hardly in a position to make pronouncements on what is realistic in terms of military strength and national security objectives. Chatting with a few people does not an informed view give.
Yes Occam, but I am in a position to talk with other citizens about what I see and hear.
And, last I looked, this isn’t a cabinet meeting, but rather a forum to discuss ideas. So, maybe you would rather just talk amongst yourselves and not be bothered by the likes of me.
But the message you send while attempting to drown me out is pretty well understood; and quite frankly makes me and others like me continue to feel islolated by our own countrymen and women. We have no island when we are too left for the right and too right for the left. A common sentiment and truly sad.
Sen Murkowski is telling it like it is as I speak. CSPAN2
The point, Laura, is you have been incessant, non-stop, on a mission here, so to speak. We all have heard your single issue position for weeks, now. Trying to “pound it into our heads” isn’t washing. Don’t you get it? You haven’t been “drowned out”, you’re droning. On and on, over and over. You have a microscopic view which the whole war in your view revolves around. You say you’re here to challenge. Well, back at you. And you know what I think your motives are, by the “label” you have earned from me. Others think you’re merely a doting leftie activist with an agenda. Some believe you, others don’t.
It’s not like you’re getting tased, sis. If being challenged equates to being “insulted”, tough.
Lee: palms up. I have no wish to fight you.
Unfortunately yes, my perspective is shaped by what I see and hear.
Sorry for droning. I think I shall just read and let the rest of you contribute. All I ask is that when you debate the war, please try to remember that you are talking about human beings, our families, that will be doing the hard work. Thats all.
Thanks. I’ve said all I think I should.
That’s precisely what I hope the decision makers do not do. I hope instead that they make a coldly rational calculation of our national interests and how best to achieve them, and then act decisively toward that end. No mushy feelings, no Lifetime network specials, no Kumbaya, no drum circles, no poetry readings, just a chess-like calculation ruthlessly implemented.
Paradoxically, that’s how to minimize human suffering.
Yeah. That’s right. Active, decisive and oh let’s see…realistic. It’s wonderful to dream about building a million dollar home, but just a dream on a 200K budget.
Let’s hope that THIS time, they will get it right.
Read the history of the Civil War. Everything went completely wrong until the last nine months. Half a dozen commanding generals of various degrees of sloth and incompetence, hopelessly bungled strategy, tactics, and execution, poor equipment and training, that led to hundreds of thousands of Union dead (including several thousand in the first hour alone of Antietam).
On top of that, treasonous behavior by the Democrats (Copperheads) suing for peace (including draft riots in NY in 1863 in which anti-war Democrats lynched 11 black men to protest against the “nigger war,” as they called it. In 1864 the Copperheads ran on a platform of ending the war, and looked set to defeat Lincoln until miraculously Sherman captured Atlanta, buoying northern spirits.
Moreover, Lincoln personally was subjected to even more vile and scurrilous vituperation than Bush has been. He’d suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and closed opposition newspapers, and was widely regarded as a bumpkin, a simpleton, and an incompetent (including by members of his Cabinet).
His beatification only occurred upon his assassination, when the unwashed realized what he had contributed, and at what cost.
A little historical perspective. The same is true to varying extents of every war, except Gulf War I and II.
Laura, I have a question for you. You present yourself as a conservative and as an advocate for the military. When asked in an earlier thread which presidential candidates you were considering, you named Republicans exclusively.
Yet very little of what you say on this board reflects that. You have pushed talking points on this thread that mesh with Daily Kos and Huffington post talking points.
I’m not suggesting that you don’t bring an interesting perspective to these threads. I just question your representation of yourself as compared to your ideas.
An example: You present the Boxer resolution as ‘condemning all attack ads against military’. Are you saying ads attacking a presidential candidate (Kerry) is an attack against ‘the military’ ?
First words and last words in the column: Betray Us. This is not a ‘credibility challenge’. This is an accusation.
Tap, I am a registered Independent. But, I am very frustrated about how the war has been handled. Hard not to. Lindsay Graham echoed those words yesterday on the Foreign Relations committee meeting.
I think that whole MoveOn debacle is a dog and pony show, that’s my opinion. To take that much time on the floor to hammer it home while not bothering to vote on the Webb ammendment infuriates families like myself, middle minded folks who have soldiers. On the floor of the Sentate yesterday, Murkowski stated that she was terribly frustrated by what she sees in her own state, Alaska, praised Webb for the bill and at the same time pointed out that it was unrealistic in order to protect troops already there. My point is that to execute the war in realistic fashion, which HAS NOT been done and so many military generals have said so, one must keep in mind that only 1% of the population is fighting in it. It’s easy to say “stay the course” when you don’t personally have to make those sacrifices. So, if I’m not conservative enough, tough. Guess what, not liberal either. Many military families find themselves in the exact position that I do.
It isn’t a stretch to see that Republicans have lost the support of many military and military families. To see just how my comments, concerns are replied to here, it’s easy to see why.
A combination of demographic and political changes has transformed our military and their families from reliable Republican voters into swing voters, whose votes were in play throughout the 2006 campaign, and whose votes will remain in play heading into 2008. Data from a variety of sources, including The Washington Post, the Pew Research Center, Democracy Corps, and the Department of Defense’s own armed forces surveys, consistently showed that military families’ votes were competitive in 2006 and remain so today.
Such a shift in the attitudes of the military has important implications. The one and a half million active-duty military, the one million reservists, and the millions who comprise their families formed one of the largest, most important, and least-discussed blocs of swing voters in the 2006 election. Their growing distance from the GOP signals an important shift in the political landscape which could have an impact on our elections and, more importantly, our foreign policy, for decades to come.
“Evidence also suggests that military families have turned away from President George W. Bush. In polls conducted by The Washington Post, these respondents persistently registered strong disapproval of Bush throughout the fall of 2006 and well into 2007, mirroring attitudes of Independents much more closely than those of Republicans.”
Now, you might say that politics don’t have any business mixing with war, and that would be completely naive. They are blood brothers.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/14/military_donors_turn_to_democrats/
So, asking me who I will get behind to lead is a very loaded question. I will get behind whoever can admit the mistakes that were made and present a CLEAR plan, not spin on AQI, with realistic expectations of the Iraqis and lack of the BS that seems to run rampant in these parts.
Laura, jJust out of curiosity, do you have any views that are not self-referential?
Can you imagine a sound decision that adversely affects you personally?
Occam says:
“Laura, jJust out of curiosity, do you have any views that are not self-referential?”
In context of the war, I have views that are “group” referential.
“Can you imagine a sound decision that adversely affects you personally?”
It depends on the context. If you are talking about the war, and continuing on the same course without end, and YOU would label that sound, then I see that that decision affects my group personally.
I’m not the only military family member. You have radical groups both left and right. Most are in the middle, like me.
So that would be two “no’s.”
There is certainly a case to be made that Laura represents her family, but where’s the excuse that she represents “many” military families? Politicians at least have the excuse that some people voted for them, not every person and not every person that was alive but some people. What reason does Laura offer that she represents more than herself and her own?
It’s easy to say “stay the course” when you don’t personally have to make those sacrifices.
The only one saying “stay the course” is you. Do you really believe anyone else’s family in the military chose their “course” that President Bush would declare war against Iraq and conduct the war in the way that he did? Of course not, but staying the course is a useful catchphrase to replace real reasoned arguments, which is why you prefer the phrase, is it not.
None of these problems will magically disappear should even 90% of the US male population be mobilized. Israel has a larger percentage serving in reserves and the mandated military services than the US, yet their government is actually more left wing and appeasement based than Bush’s. Who sets the course for the US and the military forces here is the government, and no one else. Military families can only, at best, be an indirect influence on policy by changing the minds of a few select individuals, but let there be no mistake, government and the leadership still makes the majority of small, medium, petty, and large policy decisions.
The US is no democracy that can have its course changed by a public plebecite sentencing someone inconvenient to death or life.
Petraeus is a general. Is he staying the course or is he not a general in your view? Or simply not a general that you agree with.
Also, if you wish for respect as a Gold Star mom, blackfive and Mudville Gazette are popular places to hold military discussions at. There, you will find many former and current military members and family members.
You do not represent 1% of Americans. Yet you feel a sense of bonding with those suffering in war. This is emotional and rather eph[e]meral. It’s not based upon anything other than that you believe there’s something wrong with 1% of America being at war. You adv[o]cate that there is something wrong and it must be fixed, but instead of cr[a]fting bills or criti[c]izing policies, you stick to lobbying individuals. That might be useful against Biden and other sen[a]tors, but what’s the point of lobbying against people here? Do you think people at Neo, if convinced by your decl[a]rations, will be able to make your situation better?
THere’s so[m]ething wrong with watching Senators like Biden debate on the floor as if it matters. After all, the major decisions are made behind doors when votes are bought. The senate debate sessions are simply performance acts for the camer[a]s.