McCain's Reasonable Honesty His Downfall?
by neolibertarian
Democrats are playing dirty, especially Howard Dean, who has led the charge to maliciously and blatantly misinterpret John McCain's comment that an uneventful, peaceful occupation of Iraq for 100 years would be acceptable.
In response to a town hall question about staying in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said "make it a hundred." Then he said "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." Yet somehow Howard Dean, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as well as tons of media types, have twisted that into an endless war with troops fighting and dying.
McCain himself compared it to Korea and Japan, and we've had a presence in those countries as well as others like Germany and Iceland for over half a century - and those countries aren't overwhelmingly violent toward us. Iceland doesn't really even have a military, it relies on the US for that purpose.
I'm not certain that 100 years in any foreign country is necessarily a good thing. It can breed resentment - on the part of the military country for uncompensated support (most of Europe still owes the US for the postwar aid programs), on the part of the host country for an unwelcome presence, and it can heighten tension during periods of disagreement. But the presence can also have positive (if somewhat expensive) effects, such as projecting force, providing stability, and showing commitment.
Regardless of the merits of the issue of peacefully remaining in a country, though, the Democrats want to smear McCain as a crazy warmonger and will step on the principles of charitable debate and honesty to do so.
How is it that the Democrats can fight their entire campaign on the premise that Republicans are evil slanderers when they're willfully misinterpreting a mainstream opinion (if politically insensitive) into a hyper-extreme one? Clearly the Democrats are at least as bad when it comes to tough campaigning. In this case, though, McCain has alienated supporters and suspended staff in order to enforce his demand for a clean campaign, as well as defend Max Cleland and John Kerry from the unfair attacks Democrats cite. He defended both Hillary and Obama as good and patriotic Senators, defended Obama from using his middle name as a slur, and has gone out of his way to play nice with the two candidates. And the Democrats' high-minded response? Slander him as a heartless warmonger.
Of course, McCain does have support for argument that a prolonged presence is reasonable. At the time of the invasion, a General said this: "[W]e'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." That was General McPeak, Obama endorser and war critic, who has featured very prominently as a character witness for Obama in the last week.
Defunding the Iraqis
by neolibertarian
The House voted yesterday to approve $120-odd billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they included an enormous amount of criminally-abusive pork barrel, and of course a timetable that the troops have to be out before the 2008 election. Oops, technically it's August 2008 as the deadline, but I'm sure that it's just an amazing coincidence that they want the troops pulling out just as the Democrats are having their presidential nominating convention, and not some horribly transparent attempt at making political hay out of abandoning an entire regime to sword-wielding, suicide-bombing fascists.
I'm sure the Democrats would love to have Obama or whoever get up on stage in late summer 2008 to declare Democratic victory over Bush and declare freedom's defeat in Iraq. The Kossacks would go crazy at whatever applause line they turned the abandonment of Iraq into.
Fortunately, Bush will veto the bill if it even gets passed in the Senate. Let's all remember the LAST time the US decided to start the Iraqis on the path to freedom and then abruptly dumped them when the fight looked too hard: the 1991 uprisings and mass slaughter.
George H. W. Bush urged the Iraqis into revolution the day before the coalition started bombing Baghdad with this broadcast comment: "There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations."
These words, probably less than a throw-away sentence for the harshly-neorealist Bush-41, helped prompt the Shi'a and Kurds to rise up in the wake of the Coalition attacks. The Coalition, however, signed a separate peace with Saddam on February 28, and left the Iraqis largely to their own devices. Saddam was left in power and his forces were not disarmed.
The uprisings in the north and south of the country were violently suppressed. Although many segments of the Iraqi armed forces joined the rebels and they did have some weapons, Saddam had helicopter gunships and artillery. The Iraqi loyalist forces counter-attacked with indiscriminate violence. Gunships attacked civilians, artillery landed fire in residential areas, tanks fired through neighborhoods, soldiers roamed the cities and executed young men. Napalm and chemical weapons were used on the civilian populations and holy sites were desecrated, sometimes being used as centers for rape and torture.
The loyalist crackdown was itself a series of genocidal acts, aimed at weakening two ethnic-cultural groups, not at simply suppressing a rebellion. The Marsh Arabs, living in southern Iraqi wetlands, were targeted for ethnic cleansing; their marshlands were drained of water and something like ninety percent of their population was either killed, displaced or forcibly ejected from their ancestral home.
Why didn't the Bush administration help? Fear of repeating Vietnam is often cited, but I think a large part of it is the neorealism of the Bush-41 administration. They didn't want to lose Arab support, they didn't want to get dragged into regime change. This was the same administration that nearly ignored the former Soviet Union even though it clearly needed some guidance on democratization. The US leadership at the end of the Cold War went from emphasizing Soviet democracy and human rights under Reagan to ignoring them under Bush-41. It's no surprise that the same people who failed to capitalize on democratic hopes in the Soviet Union wouldn't really mind a bloody tyrant in Baghdad.
Moreover, Bush-41 emphasized balancing power over expanding liberty in his foreign policy. He accepted the extremely anti-liberty actions of allies and enemies in favor of the balance they supposedly provided (apparently displacing hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shi'a into neighboring countries was considered balancing).
Today, the Democrats are trying to withdraw amidst very scattered and unfocused arguments, the essence of which is that this war is unwinnable. They tell us that violence is getting worse, this is a civil war, these people will never stop killing each other, and the Iraqis must do this by themselves. In other words, let them all kill each other and leave us out of it. That's precisely what the Bush-41 State Department urged when it called the March 1991 genocide and war crimes 'internal Iraqi affairs.'
People are dying now. The Iraqi forces are already dying in greater numbers than Westerners in this battle. They're trying to get involved in the fight, but we can't label the Iraqis as one big group that's either 100% with us or 100% against us. They have their violent elements and they have their democratizing elements, and without our help you know which side will probably win.
A retreat now would be demoralizing for those we wish to win in Iraq and a supreme morale boost for those we wish to see defeated. Are we going to leave the Iraqis to die, just as Bush did in 1991?
This isn't just an Iraqi fight. This is our fight, too. They're fighting for freedom and against Islamists. It isn't a perfect fight by any stretch of the imagination, but we can't run just because victory doesn't fall into our laps. The enemies of Iraq are the enemies of the West, the enemies of tolerance, the enemies of women, the enemies of gays, the enemies of Jews, the enemies of free speech, free religion, free thought, free markets and free people. They are the enemies of freedom.
Will America continue to stand as freedom's protector, or will we succumb to isolationism, apathy, intellectual sloth and racism and abandon the Arab world to the steady advance of nihilism, theocracy and fascism?
GOP Victory
by neolibertarian
There's some talk of how the Republicans might deserve to lose the House and that sometimes divided government results in leaner government (see VC here).
I can't say the GOP deserves to win, given its mistakes and misdirection on damn near everything. I can say, though, that a Democratic House would assume that dissatisfaction over Iraq propelled them to victory - and then proceed to block funding the President requests for Iraq reconstruction.
Failure in Iraq is dangerous to the region and the world. The Democrats' defunding of the reconstruction could virtually end the regime. With Islamists worldwide already beating the path to Iraq, a drawdown, pullout or defunding of the Iraqi democratic regime would incite them further.
Until Iraq can stand itself up, we have to be there to help. It's interesting that the same people who claimed in 2003 and 2004 that we need more and more and more allies in the War on Terror are trying to alienate our newest ally.
Zarqawi Dead
by neolibertarian
I didn't blog on it, but Zarqawi is dead. Good. He was a murderer and a fool.
Hopefully the US will take this opportunity to push ahead and kill more terrorist leaders. Assassinations would be good at this point, on the style of Israel taking out Yassin.
Miss Iraq
by neolibertarian
Apparently the Miss Iraq pageant went through some troubles. First nine of the 20 contestants got scared and didn't show up at all. Then the winner resigned and fled amid threats on her life. The first and second runners-up declined the crown and now it's down to the third runner-up to be the face of iraqi beauty pageants. Both the reisgned winner and the current queen are Christian.
The queen is very concerned both with extremists' threat to peace and with the perception of Iraqis and of beauty contestants. She wants it to be clear that the contestants were not stupid and were professional women. Moreover she wants to show the world a more positive side of Iraq.
Inspired by She's A Lady, by Tom Jones:
She's got style, she's got grace
Muslims won't ler her show her face
She's Iraqi
whoa, whoa, whoa, she's Iraqi
Mosque Bombing in Samarra
by neolibertarian
The Wednesday bombing of al-Askari mosque was obviously an attempt to try and kick off a civil war. Unfortunately, it does seem like it could become a contributing factor or catalyst to one. I don't think it'll happen, though, since the majority of elites, citizens and politicians in Iraq are committed to a multi-ethic, multi-sectarian state. Iraq the Model's description of Iraq's reaction shows how serious it is. Riots, reprisals, protests, calls for solidarity and attempts to rebuild are all part of the situation. The fact that so many calls for Iraqi unity have been heard from the beginning gives me real faith in the Iraqis to weather the storm. It's especially encouraging that they're doing this as a country, with their own politicians, civil society groups and civic leaders getting involved; that's one mark of a society ready for liberal democracy.
Here's the damage:
So what's the deal with the mosque? Well, it's named for the Eleventh Imam, Hassan Al-Askari. He's buried there, along with his father, the Tenth Imam, Ali Al-Hadi. Al-Askari's son (if he did indeed exist) was/is Muhammad Al-Mahdi. The Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, is supposed to be of the Prophet's house (family/bloodline), sharing Mohammed's name, and to bring about a world of peace, justice and Islam before judgment day. So in Shi'ism, the Mahdi is a sort of messiah, one of the more important and unique parts of the religion, and a major point of contention with the Sunnis.
The 10th and 11th Imams died (most likely) from poisoning, after living all their lives under house arrest by Sunni Caliphs. As the father and grandfather of the Mahdi, not to mention the last two adult Imams (the Mahdi supposedly fled the Abbasids at the age of five), their importance is quite high. Now factor in the history involved, since the two Imams were killed over 1,100 years ago. Al-Askari mosque is one of the holiest sites in Shi'ism.
Given the depth of the situation, it's noteworthy and impressive that the Shi'ite clerics are calling for restraint and condemning counter-attacks. Sistani, Sadr and others have all told their followers to leave Sunni holy places alone, with Sadr even send segments of his militia (The Mahdi Army) to protect Sunni shrines in majority-Shi'a areas (even though he sort of blames the occupation for the bombing).
Of course, over 100 people have been killed in reprisals already, most of them Sunnis. So there's a lot of emotion and it's already boiled over. Remember, the Middle East still has a lot of the old desert-tribal culture to it, where an eye for an eye is more about seeking revenge than achieving it. A lot of people are pissed off and they'll take it out on people who don't deserve it.
And of course, as anybody could have guessed, it looks like this was done by foreign Islamists (most likely in Iraq working for Zarqawi and Al Qaeda). Foreigners have already been arrested in connection with the bombing.
Well, to the Iraqis, all I can say is good luck. You've got a lot of good signs, but responding to terrorism with internal violence against Iraqis is hardly one of them.
Stethem's Honor
by neolibertarian
Muhammad Ali Hammadi was just released by the German lander Nordrhein-Westfalen, most likely under orders/pressure from the federal government under Merkel. It appears the Germans released Hammadi, a convicted murderer and terrorist who ought to have been extradited to the US, but was instead convicted by the Germans, in exchange for the release of one of their agents, recently taken hostage. If so, this is an extremely dangerous practice, and one that does little good for the process as a whole, for the people involved, or for the victims of Hammadi (past and future).
This letter from Stethem's brother needs to be read to get a sense of the man the Germans released (tip to Barone).Mr. President,
I would like to provide you with an explanation as to why Muhammed Ali Hammadi's recent release by Germany, and your Administration's lack of any attempt to prevent it, is so upsetting to our family and to Americans everywhere. I am not writing you out of grief or anger but out of a hope that his example will inspire you to follow act on your own words and the dictates of your conscious in this War on Terror.
Robert Dean Stethem was singled out, beaten beyond recognition and tortured in order to make him scream into a transmitter (so that the tower would send a fuel truck). Not a cry was heard to come from him, despite the brutal beating he endured. Instead he chose to remain silent and endure the beatings because he knew that the only way a rescue attempt could be conducted by U.S. forces was if the aircraft remained on the ground.
After Robert was beaten and tortured and bleeding from puncture wounds all over his body, he was placed next to a 16-year old Australian girl. As bad as Robert was beaten, he had the courage and strength to comfort and console her. He told her that, "She would be okay and that she would get out of here alive." When she tried to return the comfort, he said, "No, I don't think so. I am the only one in my group that is not married and some of the guys have children, too." Some time later, Robert was again taken up to the cockpit and tortured in order to get the fuel. But it didn't work, he would not give in to them.
One of the hijackers, Muhammed Ali Hammadi, was so enraged that he dragged Robert to the door, pulled a trigger and shot Robert in the head. Then he dumped Robert's body onto the tarmac. While Robert was being dragged to the door, he knew that all he had to do in order to live was to cry into that transmitter, but he wouldn't do it. He would not give in to the demands of the terrorists. He would not allow the honor and dignity of America to be intimidated by the fear and pain that Hammadi and terrorists everywhere represent. Robert sacrificed his life in order to protect our liberty and defend our way of life.
You have rightly said, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." You have truly said that "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Robert lived by them. Robert also died by them. The motto of the USS SSTETHEM (DDG-63), named in Robert's honor, is "Steadfast and Courageous." I hope that his example, and the example of other heroes like him can inspire you to understand why allowing Germany to release Hammadi was a wrong. Justice was not done, Robert was not honored and Americans are not safer by allowing Hammadi to return to Lebanon and Hezbollah.
You know this, we know this and the American people know this.
The Stethem family
In other words, Hammadi is like a bad stereotype of a bloddthirsty terrorist, and he killed an American hero. The fact that the Germans wouldn't extradite appears (from the facts at hand) to be a small insult. But it may have been a fairly calculated attempt to hang onto bargaining chips.
I know the Israelis tend to engage in this sort of prisoner exchange deal, but it only strikes me as hopelessly entrenched in combat. If the coalition captures a high-ranking terrorist, then it increases the pressure on the terrorists to capture enough bargaining chips to get him back. It tends to institutionalize a conflict, and make hostage-taking an almost defensive move - a way to neutralize captures of your guys by trading away your captives.
The immediate consequence is that hostage-taking pays off, so hostages become far more valuable. That means more danger to the people in Iraq and elsewhere.
There's also something downright wrong about negotiating with terrorists - they refuse to respect the rules of combat or the neutrality of noncombatants. We shouldn't be standing a quarter mile away from a gang of terrorists with the respective captives doing a slow march past each other; we should take any such opportunity to detain or kill the terrorists.
I realize it's incredibly difficult to tell the mother of a hostage that we don't negotiate with terrorists, but if we're going to let grieving mothers set foreign policy we'd just elect Cindy Sheehan Jewhater-in-Chief. Grieving mothers don't make good decisions for other people, for the countless soldiers and journalists and reformers who are safer from capture precisely because capture has so little payoff.
Even the impression that Germany made a trade could potentially raise the risk of kidnappings in hostile areas. Merkel needs to step up now and condemn such trades, and restate that Berlin will not negotiate with terrorists.
Republicans and Democracy
by neolibertarian
The Democrats are against the war in Iraq, and have trouble cheering too loudly for the development of democracy in other countries - especially in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon where independence and democracy are very strongly linked to Bush specifically and Republican rhetoric generally. Is this a fluke? After all, in the 1970s and 1980s a lot of lefties were criticizing the US and then the Reagan administration for not supporting democracy, for harboring authoritarian allies, and for being overly pragmatic in foreign policy. Surely that's the real left, and this is all just a departure, right?
Well, not really.
The criticism of Reagan was more on grounds of hypocrisy, since Reagan spent more time talking about democracy and freedom abroad (as relates to concrete American policy) than perhaps any President before or since. The left, by which I mean academics, activists and people near the fringe but not quite within it, criticized Reagan and the Republicans for holding onto right-wing authoritarians as a favorable alternative to left-wing totalitarians. It was primarily a way to criticize Reagan.
Between the Republicans and Democrats, it's overwhelmingly been the Republican preference to emphasize democracy, progress and freedom. While it's easy for leftists to glom onto democracy when they think Republicans are abandoning it, it's just as easy for them to run to isolationism when Republicans are weak there. That's certainly not to say that no leftists have objective or principled views on foreign policy, but there's a far more defined themerefor Republicans.
The Civil War, the first Republican-led war and a war that came about BECAUSE of the Republican victory in 1860, was characterized by pro-war Yankees as one or both of two things. First, it was often argued as a way to save the union and thus representative government; without the union, the argument went, there could be no republic. So the Civil War was then a fight for popular governance. And second, it was a fight for the freedom of both the western territories and of the slaves. The unionism/republicanism argument was more persuasive overall in the earlier parts of the war, but since then the freedom/abolition argument is all but universally favored (even to the point where few people know republicanism was put up as a justification at all).
The Cold War, heavily favored by Republicans, was also characterized as a struggle for freedom and democracy. While the Democrats were pushing the strategy of containment (hold the Soviets where they are, fight their expansion), more energetic Republicans were pushing the rollback/liberation strategy. The idea was that communism is an evil, and no person deserves to be enslaved under that system, therefore it's good on grounds of both morality and security to try and free peoples living under communist dominion. Moreover, the moral differences between freedom and communism must be exemplified, because that's the real fight.
Well the same thing applies in the Global War On Terror. We need to emphasize the difference between the world the terrorists want to create versus the world we'd like to create. Republicans are making this point much more strongly (though few politicians besides McCain and Bush are making it enough) than Democrats, and that's normaly, par for the course.
The Democrats, in the Civil War, the Cold War and the Global War On Terror - three conflicts that epitomize conflict between American-style free democracy and backwards-looking feudalism, totalitarianism and nihilism, respectively - took and are taking more "nuanced" stances.
A number of northern Democrats ('Peace Democrats' or 'Copperheads') in the Civil War wanted immediate peace negotiations with the South. They thought reuniting the union wasn't worth the cost of lives and property that it was taking. They differ from anti-GWOT Democrats by forthrightly admitting that they didn't think blacks should be emancipated. Modern Democrats don't usually say that foreigners don't deserve freedom and democracy, even if tyranny would be the result of their proposals. The Copperheads also thought that Lincoln was destroying the country and ruling as an anti-republican despot (where have we heard that before?).
In the Cold War and the War on Terror, the Democratic/anti-war position is generally one somewhere between conciliation/retreat and muted conflict. By downplaying the evils of the enemy, and laughing at those who do (whether it's Reagan calling the USSR an Evil Empire, or Bush calling three terror-backing countries an Axis of Evil) they refuse to enter into heightened conflict, anbd by extension don't put a great deal of pressure for liberal democracy. Sure, they want it, and they'll talk about it, but when there's any major cost beyond a simple spending program or diplomacy most of them aren't interested enough.
So it's no surprise that the anti-war left, which falsely seemed synonymous with democratization in years past, is almost totally uninterested in the natural and civil rights of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's always been Republicans who embrace freedom and democracy in foreign policy - though, unfortunately, even among Republicans there is a sizable number that will use any pretense to 'fight the enemy' and who don't see freedom as the motivating force in world events. But that's neither here nor there.
Iraqi Elections
by neolibertarian
Well, Howard Dean told us all a week and a half ago in an official Democratic address that there was no way we were going to win in Iraq, but by all accounts the elections in iraq today fall firmly in the Victory category. Violence was low and turnout was high, including the Sunni community's surprisingly high turnout. By any measure, those are improvements, and they suggest both a strong commitment on the part of Iraqis to work together to build a democracy, and the capability of US and Iraqi forces to police the country despite intense pressure from Islamist killers all over the world.
But if we rewind, victory didn't seem so certain two years ago when Howard Dean had made a name for himself opposing the war. A lot of Democrats have since gotten on the anti-war bandwagon. They were hesitant at first, voting to authorize force in Afghanistan and in Iraq, voting for appropriations, and then slowly voting against appropriations or calling for timetables and reports.
They've now many of them made some awfully strident anti-war comments. And it's stuck to them, because it's hard to pull both sides of an issue. At this point it's too difficult for the Democrats to collectively claim credit or co-credit for the war in Iraq if it succeeds, or even the war in Afghanistan (guilt by association, combined with the opposition of many Iraq-war opponents to the Afghanistan war). But if we pull out a la Vietnam they can blame the war on Republicans and take the credit for ending it.
If the war doesn't end in a pullout soon, though, it'll probably end in victory. There's not a lot of political gain for opponents of a successful (read: popular) war. Since in American politics the success of a war and the popularity of a war are psychologically connected, a won war is a good, popular war, and a lost war is a bad, unpopular war.
Bush is going to have to be careful, though, and wait until either the Iraqi government says that it can handle more or all of the burden, or until it becomes relatively obvious to even the more jaded reporters that the terrorists have largely been neutralized in Iraq. That way, a troop reduction or withdrawal will look like victory, rather than (misleadingly) appear like a retreat.
Iraq is looking up, and we should all be very happy for the Iraqis that they have a country to be proud of now. While the US and UK leaders deserve credit for finally ousting Saddam, the Iraqi people deserve the credit for making their country a good place to live again. They're the ones building democracy and expanding the economy, and they're the ones often braving threats of political violence to do so.
What's At Stake In Iraq
by neolibertarian
Despite nearly all coverage on network television, newspapers and most cable news, we're drawing up to a victory in Iraq.
Every conflict even resembling vertical warfare between the Coalition or Iraqi troops and Islamist or former-regime-element forces ends in not just a defeat of the reactionary killers, but doesn't require a wholesale flattening of the area. In other words, we may have a huge advantage in terms of explosives and firepower, but we're not resorting to just levelling all the towns and cities with terrorists. They're actually being killed or detained by mixed-infantry action.
They couldn't stand up in Fallujah, even with months of preparing to hold the city and a unilateral ceasefire by the Coalition. Zarqawi, who promised to die with his men, fled the city while a huge chunk of his people were killed or detained and the rest scattered through the country. Mosul, where many of the Fallujah-fleeing terrorists ended up, had whole neighborhoods that the terrorists wanted to militarize and keep the Coalition and Iraqis from entering. They quickly learned that permanent emplacements and positions would be destroyed and that openly holding neighborhoods was wholly untenable. Now it looks like even a more covert presence in Mosul has been a failure for them, as Iraqis rat out cell leaders to police and soldiers.
Since we don't have to destroy Iraq to kill the terrorists, the lives of most Iraqis can progress and improve. That should be our main goal here, since ultimate victory or defeat in Iraq is largely determined by the condition of the Iraqis in the future.
But if we fail, especially if we just leave (the most dramatic form of failure) then what would the Iraqis face? Well, fortunately today is not six months ago. The Iraqi army is in many ways greener than a new banaa, and would have trouble standing up without at least logistical support. But there are today many more elements of the Iraqi army than there were a year ago, and many more capable of performing well in battle than there were just a few months ago. So of course abandoning the Iraqis today is a different proposition from abandoning them a year ago.
And abandoning our friend and allies in Iraq is different from abandoning our friends and allies in Vietnam. Back then, when the Vietnam war had effectively ended in a stalemate like Korea (except that at least in Korea we attempted to free the North; not so in Vietnam) the Viet Cong were destroyed and the war had basically ended for most of South Vietnam. But the US pullout and Watergate prompted anti-war Congressmen to pull the funding for Vietnam's defense. When the North Vietnamese flagrantly violated the peace treaty and the US did little more than softly protest, the NVA swept through the South and destroyed the ARVN. Though some individual units fought courageously, the conclusion was inevitable and Saigon was overrun. Had the US continued to assist in Vietnamese defenses, or if the US had fulfilled Nixon's promise to militarily defend the peace treaty and the South's independence, then South Vietnam would today be a lot like South Korea.
This will not happen in Iraq, because Iraq is not under threat of national invasion (the way Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990). Iraq is under threat of infestation, and the danger is that the country will devolve into open civil war, warlords and widespread, arbitrary violence. If our premature, cowardly pullout were to precipitate this turn of events (as it would likely embolden the terrorists, who begin to realize their days in Iraq are numbered) the consequential fate of the Iraqis is the fault of the US. In a like fashion, the fate of our Vietnamese allies is the fault of the US.
When the South Vietnamese were surprise-attacked by the North Vietnamese, many of them fled to the US ('boat people') and those who didn't leave were often sent to Communist re-education camps, sometimes for well over a decade, while others were slaughtered Hue-style.
It seems unlikely that we'll pull out of Iraq any time soon, and so whenever we do leave, there's a greater and greater chance that the balance of iraqis will be okay. But it's important to remember what hangs in the balance here. The Iraqis could be dramatically plunged into chaos and violence that makes the current conflict seem contained and respectful. The terrorists involved are the sort of people who brook no dissent, who see even Shi'a Islamists as perpetual enemies, and who will use any justification or conspiracy to reinforce their violence. They have demeaning views of women, of non-Arabs, of secularists, and of the West. Encouraging them to exercise force in Iraq is the last thing any good person wants.
And of course, leaving Iraq would leave a substantial base of operations for terrorists of every stripe, and would signal other countries like Syria, Iran, Libya and the rest that all they have to do is stick it through our pressure and they can defeat us. That sort of impression endangers this country, not just post-war Iraq.
Fortunately we're getting closer to a long-term victory in Iraq. Soon the pressure will be not to cut and run because we're losing, but to leave Iraq because the mission's over. The crossover between the two arguments will be awkward, since the anti-war people have been so adamant about the US losing that they've been wishing for it, but they'll start moving that way by saying it's tough for us and we've done enough for them. Then they'll say that it was expensive and difficult for us, but they're mostly on their feet and we can leave. I expect that's as positive as most anti-war people will ever get, but by that time it would mean that our victory in Iraq became obvious even to perpetual naysayers.
Leaving prematurely, and before the terrorists are tyhoroughly demoralized and crushed, is a real danger. The challenge in Iraq now is to stay through to completion as in the next few years it will increasingly but incorrectly look like our work may be done.
Hope That's In The Movie
by neolibertarian
I have a suggestion, taken from an old Michael Yon dispatch, for inclusion in the rumored Bruce Willis project about Deuce Four in Iraq:Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.
The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.
Certainly makes for a different image of the war's progress than I usually get from TV.
Press Spells Alito L-I-B-B-Y
by neolibertarian
The nomination of Alito will not diminish the press' obsession with Scooter Libby being indicted.
The Alito nomination is bad for them to cover. First of all, it replaces a contentious Miers, who split conservatives openly and viciously, with a nomination that most of the Republican coalition can get behind. The one draw for the press of Alito's nomination is that he's conservative. But the Supreme Court is larely beyond a lot of the press, its role as arbitrator, its language and traditions, and all of its complexities. That's why when they report about the Supreme Court, they tend to focus on abortion and affirmative action, rather than philosophies or even the judicial issues like privacy and equal protection.
One example that sticks with me is the Bush v. Gore case in late 2000. The reporters had been covering the case with much excitement (naturally) and when the decision was handed out, they quickly learned that the Supreme Court wasn't going to just say 'Gore' or 'Bush.' The first report was that Gore won, because a reporter (or maybe intern) read the decision incorrectly. That sort of judicial illiteracy persis to this day. There are a lot of judicial-beat reporters who can discuss the Supreme Court with a great deal of experience and erudition, but I don't think that's true at all when it comes down to the general political-beat reporters.
The Libby indictment, however, has tons of stuff to talk about. The press loves a good scandal, of course. That motivates more than anything else. They also love flashbacks to the late 60s and early 70s - that's what makes every military move Vietnam, every Republican Nixon and every reporter Woodward and/or Bernstein. So indicting a White House aide makes them salivate to get bigger fish like Rove, Cheney and eventually Bush. They want to unravel a scandal that will destroy Bush's presidency and discredit the war in Iraq. They are obsessed with the story, it dominates every installment on Hardball, even though there's usually not a lot of new stuff to report, and NBC's David Gregory has been biting the Press Secretary's head off for months over it.
Of course, the Plamegate/Leakgate scandal is never going to discredit the war in Iraq as its currently formulated. Supposedly this was about discrediting Joe Wilson over uranium from Niger, but Joe Wilson was factually incorrect; the Iraqis were trying to get uranium from Niger, as British intelligence has been arguing for years. Now there's some allegations that Judith Plame was just a mouthpiece for Administration arguments about WMDs in Iraq, but before the war everybody agreed that Saddam had weapons - Clinton officials, Democratic primary contenders, the French, the Germans, the British, the UN, everybody. The press generally wants to forget this and go on discrediting the 'quagmire' in Iraq as 'another Vietnam.'
So we're going to hear a lot more about Scooter Libby, see a lot more shots of Karl Rove on TV, and hear reporters fantasizing about indicting Cheney and dragging Bush to testify in court - even as surprising little happens to justify near-continuous coverage of the subject.
'Plamegate' and Iraq
by neolibertarian
The most under-reported part of this over-reported story is that Joe Wilson was in fact incorrect. As I understand it, the scandal was that the White House was trying to undermine Joe Wilson because he criticized the case for war. Specifically, Wilson said that iraq didn't try to buy nuclear material from Niger.
But the problem is that Iraq DID try to buy nuclear material from niger in the late 90s. British Intelligence has maintained this whole time that Saddam sought nuclear material in Niger, even as the US pro-war people have been ignoring or denying it.
You'd never know from watching most of the coverage of the Plamegate scandal that the case for the war in Iraq, insofar as it was based on Iraq seeking nuclear materials from Africa, was perfectly correct!
Democrats Still Reject Exit Plan From War On Poverty
by neolibertarian
Despite massive failures, retreats, financial catastrophes and a miserable lack of creativity in the process, the Democratic Party still refuses to set a date for withdrawal from the War on Poverty. Of course, they fought an undeclared war on poverty for decades longer, starting with the New Deal.
LBJ lied; the economy died!
Saddam Hussein Trial Blog
by neolibertarian
There's now a blog dedicated to discussing and covering the trial of Saddam Hussein. (tip to VC)
The issues they've raised for debate and discussion are important and intriguing. I'd like to offer my opinions on their 9 issues.Issue #1: Does Saddam Hussein have a right to represent himself before the Iraqi Special Tribunal like Slobodan Milosevic has done at The Hague?
Yes, he does. If he has a right to retain counsel for his defense then he has the right to lead his own defense. It's probably a horrible iudea, but he has that right - a right he denied to countless others.Issue #2: Should the Saddam Hussein trial be televised?
I'm ambivalent on this subject, but it's probably best to leave it at no. It should be recorded for posterity of course, but I'd prefer not to give Saddam one last platform to speak to people. He might even be able to communicate a message to the last of his followers.Issue #3: Is the Iraqi Special Tribunal, which was established on December 10, 2003 by the Occupying Power and the unelected Iraqi Governing Council, a legitimate judicial institution?
Yes, judicial bodies are not supposed to gain legitimacy through elections. They can gain practical legitimacy through public support, but the matter at hand is whether it can deliver a fair trial that respects the rights of the accused while also delivering justice for victims.Issue #4: Should Saddam Hussein Be Exposed to the Death Penalty?
Yes, of course. Aside from exercising it against untold hundreds of thousands with few or no pretenses of trial protections, Saddam Hussein is a disgusting, vile human body. If he doesn't deserve the death penalty then nobody does.Issue #5: Did the Iraqi regime’s actions to dam rivers, leading to the destruction of the habitat of the Marsh Arabs, constitute a form of genocide?
Yes, but only due to the intent and not the action. Because damming the rivers and draining the marshes were intended to punish the largely Shi'a population in the south and were coupled with programs intended to kill or run off the Shi'a, as well the Arabization policy to force them to take more Sunni-Arabic surnames, it could be established (by further evidence of motive and intent) that the draining of the marshes were genocide. Damming the rivers to destroy the marshes and using the hydro power to help Sunni-dominated areas is akin to ripping down Jewish houses and sending the valuables to Aryan homes.
Of course, the act of damming itself isn't genocidal. Simply damming the river could be justified on a number of rationales, including power and technology for the country (hospitals and schools being two major beneficiaries of power, not to mention industry and employment). Given the other policies targeted at ruining, dispersing, killing or converting the Marshland Shi'i Arabs, there's a strong case to be made for it being an act of genocide. I think there'd have to be some evidence establishing intent related to the damming in order to close the circle.
It has to established beyond reasonable doubt that it was genocide, not just disastrously insensitive and dangerous public policy. In my opinion, it's clear that draining the swamps was part of the genocidal policies of the Ba'athist regime.Issue #6: Did the Anfal Operations constitute Genocide?
Yes, over 1,200 villages were destroyed by the Ba'athists during the Anfal campaign, and over 3,800 villages total. Saddam's people destroyed over 1,700 schools, over 2,400 mosques, and several hundred hospitals. Approximately three-quarters of Kurdish rural villageswere destroyed. I'd say that fits the term genocide.
Unfortunately in 1988, after the massacre at Halabja, the US State Department instructed diplomats to give Iran partial blame for the massacre. Along with the potentiality that the US (and France and others) supplied some of Iraq's chemical weapons, Saddam and his defenders might be able to obscure the issue and make it seem like less than genocide. It clearly was an attempt to drive away the Kurds, who represented a threat to the Ba'athist regime, to the borders of Iraq, and to the control of northern oil fields, especially around Kirkuk. As a sidenote, the US stopped sending Iraq chemical weapons and chemical weapons precursors by mid-1984.Issue #7: Does Saddam Hussein have head of state immunity?
No. First, he's no longer head of state of anything. Second, the state he was head of no longer exists, all of its members and employees having been arrested, scattered or killed. Third, head of state immunity should not be a shield from abuses of office or from unrelated crimes committed while in office. If there's any argument to be made on this front, it would be that casualties of Kuwaitis or Iranians killed in those two wars would not be visited upon the head of state; however, considering the aggression of the Ba'athists I don't think even this limited form should be allowed to carry. Certainly the premediateted, planned, and implemented knowing policies of murder, rape and genocide shouldn't be ignored due to head of state immunity.Issue #8: Can Saddam Hussein get a fair trial?
I don't know that I have enough information to answer this question. All I can say with certainty is that he has already experienced far more legal protections than the average person under his regime would have had.Issue #9: Does the IST protect the basic right to the assistance of counsel?
The Iraqi Special Tribunal rules explicitly recognize the right to the assistance of counsel:The right to legal assistance of his own choosing, including the right to have legal assistance provided by the Defense Office if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it
On the whole, good issues, important subject.
Update: Also, I just wanted to point out that Saddam will be tried in front of Iraqi judges. The Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg were tried by the Allies, including the Soviets. I don't think it was wrong to use Allied judges in Nuremberg, but I think it speaks to the level of effort being expended in Iraq to democratize the country and to provide a fair trial for Saddam.
Don't Overplay Your Hand
by neolibertarian
I was reading a piece about invading Iran on Chicago Boyz, basically a hypothetical or a thought experiment more than a real examination. It was intended to focus on the argument that attacking Iraq made us less able to attack Iran, and I found this part thought-provoking:Now, assuming that we decide to use force to deal with Iran, would we be in a better or worse position if we hadn't dealt with Iraq? Without a large body of troops already in Iraq, how exactly would we invade Iran? Over the mountains of Afghanistan? From Kuwait? Let's not be silly. Not only that, if you don't think we can invade Iran with an active insurgency in Iraq, how'd you like to try an invasion and occupation of Iran with Saddam Hussein in power next door? Maybe invade both at once? (Actually, that wouldn't have been a bad idea two years ago... better to be hung for a sheep, as they say. What're people going to do, accuse us of imperialism?).
It seems to me that by calling the Bush Administration fascist, imperialist and murderous, the hand has been WAY overplayed. If the Administration were to do something ACTUALLY fascist then the legitimate complaints could get lumped with the bad ones. It weakens the arguments.
Just like taking pills builds up a tolerance and a partial immunity, overplaying a political hand continuously for five years weakens your arguments and the influence they have over the audience.
Now, of course it actually doesn't make sense that attacking Iraq made us weaker in dealing with iran. If anything, the Libya effect acts to persuade the Iranians to stop fucking around and get on board, while the military board is FAR more favorable with access through the Iraq-Iran border, as well as the less accessible Afghanistan-Iran border. In a way, the Western powers overplayed their hand on nuclear proliferation by talking about it for years and years but not backing it up when it counts. The US action against Iraq, not just bombing but an actual invasion, definitely restores credibility behind a US threat.
Remember, Iran, Saddam was convinced up until mid-March, 2003 that France, Russia and Germany would stop the US invasion of his country. Don't think that the US would be scared to blow up some reactors if in two, five or ten years you're still non-compliant and threatening the world (Israel did it to the Iraqi Osirak reactor in the 1980s). Of course, here's hoping that diplomacy will pull out some really victories here.
Still, better a definitive military solution that fixes the problem than a feel-good diplomatic situation that only facilitates proliferation (exactly what happened in the 1994 Agreed Framework deal with North Korea).
The real reason some people think Iraq puts us in a worse position to attack Iran is that they see things in terms of victimhood. The US attacking Irq is a non-victim thing to do, so we're not in a good place to do more non-victim things. Cindy Sheehan, however, lost her son and that allows Maureen Dowd to bestow upon Sheehan the power of "absolute moral authority" for her victimhood. Certain people don't see it in terms of effectiveness or of overreach, but in Kindergarten terms of reference like meanies, bullies and so forth.
This sort of perspective would say that our victimhood gained by 9/11 was spent on the Taliban, overdrawn by Iraq, and that iran is just too far from our reach. It's not based in military strategy, since if anything we'd have more trouble holding down the no-fly zones over Saddam and invading Iran from Afghanistan, and it's not based on effectiveness, since even a horrible, violent quagmire in iran would still allow us to bomb their nuclear facilities. I really don't want to go to war with the Iranians, because I have many hopes for reform and a little hope for diplomacy. However, let's not assume that Iraq made us worse off in dealing with these guys.
Iraq gave us teeth to add to our threats, and it shows that even against a brutal insurgency and a chorus of negativity from allied countries we can make good on our threats. Libya's learned its lessons, and it's not going to help Iran's position to have a US ally on their border. Now what we need to do is hold up the carrot to balance the stick: dropping the sanctions and engaging in normal relations if they drop all the nuclear work and join the NPT.
Religion in the Iraqi Constitution
by neolibertarian
Many people are concerned over the drafting of the Iraqi constitution and the role given to religion within it. I know why they're worried, but I think it's a relatively poor indicator.
It would be wonderful if a non-sectarian, non-religious constitution came out of Iraq. Religion has no need to be included in a legal document. It's entirely appropriate in a declaration like our Declaration of Independence or something along those lines. A declaration simply states what's going on and what we value. A constitution is a framework for the bounds and authority of the state, and the rights and avenues for redress open to the populace. Religion can be a valuable inspiration, but it's not particularly useful to codify explicitly sectarian values in law.
However, if the constitution does come out with religious gobbledygook about Allah being the supreme source of law, or the inspiration and reliance on the sharia, it's not immediately the end of the world or even of the democratic reforms in Iraq. The Egyptian constitution says the same thing: "Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)." Egypt is no picnic of a government, being deceitful, authoritarian, socialist and dictatorial, but it is one of the more secular countries in the Arab world. In fact, one of the main justifications that Mubarak and his supporters use to justify their anti-democratic rule is to ask democrats whether they want to let the Muslim Brotherhood into power. The constitution might say one thing, but that doesn't mean the government or the society is controlled by radical Muslims.
It might be something done for political purposes, it might be done out of habit and tradition, it might be done to undercut religious opposition, or it might be a sign of much more troubling things to come. I'm definitely rooting for a nonsectarian Iraqi founding document, but if one fails to emerge I don't think we should overreact to what it might mean. Let's not focus on what their rhetoric is, good or bad, and instead make sure that they protect the rights and privileges of their citizens.
Whatever happens, women got to vote in the last election. I don't think things are looking rosy for the religious zealots in Iraq, no matter what flowery phrases they might get inserted in the preamble.
The "Grieving Mother" Status Doesn't Excuse Blaming Israel
by neolibertarian
Cindy Sheehan, in mid-March:Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.
Look, everyone feels sympathy for the relatives, friends and spouses of soldiers that died in combat zones. But sympathy doesn't elevate bad ideas into good or even neutral ones. The best sympathy does is to soften or silence our criticism of grieving relations that say stupid, bigoted or untrue thing. And example would be when Mrs. Cosby blamed her son's death on racism, and saying that the Slavic immigrant who killed him must've learned his racism in the US because there is none over there.
Sympathy can get us to ignore it when somebody says something inarticulate or awkward, bigoted or cruel, because we realize that under normal circumstances they might not have said it aloud or even have thought it. But sympathy doesn't lend any credibility to a dumb argument.
When she blames Israel as the source of terrorism against us she gives an unhelpful and anti-Israel view of the world more credence. When she asserts that we fought Iraq for Israel, and repeatedly refers to the neocon PNAC agenda, she sounds like a frothing anti-Semite. Unfortunately, anti-Semites seem to agree with that view of Sheehan. Aside from Michael Moore's support, Sheehan's anti-Israel comment garnered her the support of David Duke (renowned racist and former Klansman). Here's Duke's blog entry giving a point-by-point description of how this is a Jewish war for Israel against America's interests.
I don't know that Sheehan hates Jews, but I do know she clings to the same irrational arguments that bigots like David Duke and Jew-hating terrorists use to make their points. She didn't say anything specific about Jews, but she mentioned the major points - she blamed the US and Israel instead of the terrorists, she said this was nothing but a war for Israel, and she asserted that a neocon cabal led by PNAC was behind the conspiracy to 'murder' her son. Taken together, the neocon/PNAC reference is an allusion to Jews controlling the government.
When somebody makes a reference to a Jewish person as a Fagan or a Shylock, they don't need to be explicit to be understood as anti-Semitic slurs. By the same token, when somebody says that the neocons at Project for a New American Century are controlling the government to wage war for Israel, and that America and Israel deserve to be terrorized and bombed over our allegedly joint foreign policy, it's not unreasonable to connect the dots and see an anti-Semitic conspiracy of sorts.
Maybe she's just spouting off theories she read on the Internet or something and she would be genuinely disgusted by bigoted explanations behind the war (that could very reasonably be opposed without the slightest tinge of hatred for Jews), in which case she ought to be perfectly clear about it. It's possible somebody might reference Fagan only for the stingy aspects and not realize that it's a longstanding anti-Jewish slur, and it's possible that somebody might talk about a PNAC conspiracy to send Americans to die fore the world's only Jewish state, but I'd say the assumption in both cases leans toward anti-Semitism.
Either way, what she said is wrong even if she herself is Jewish. It's bad logic, it's bad policy, it's bad IR and it's just idiotic. The terrorists have it out for us no matter what, they aren't going to stop, and they haven't stated a point at which they will stop fighting, killing, bombing and murdering. The same people fight in Chechnya (some of the 9/11 bombers were on their way to fight in Chechnya when an AQ recruiter stopped them in germany and invited them to training camps in Afghanistan) and in Sudan and in Kashmir, and none of those things are about Israel or America. Wholly irrational.
Again, the lefties should be careful about giving too much of a platform to Cindy Sheehan or she'll become something like the Jane Fonda of the war in Iraq.
From Wilson to Sheehan
by neolibertarian
Okay, so when Roberts was nominated some lefty bloggers said that it was a move to stop criticism of Rove over the Wilson-Plame business and the like (a satirical 'Rove' memo from one of the Huffington Post's eighty bajillion bloggers pops to mind). What's interesting is that the Cindy Sheehan business has actually been taken up as the cause of the week by raving lefties. She is the mother of a fallen Marine who decided that her earlier positive visit with Bush was actually a negative one, that she needs to get another visit with the leader of the free world for some reason, and that America and Israel are to blame for terrorism.
Silly me, I was blaming the people that strap bombs to jets and metros terrorism. Thank you, Cindy Sheehan, for explaining to me that the root of terrorism against the US is actually a 2003 invasion of Ba'athist Iraq. I guess Mohammed Atta and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest were just shrewdly attacking us in 2001 in order to preemptively respond to an invasion that hadn't happened yet. Your grasp of human nature and international relations astounds me.
If the left really thought the Rove-Plame-Wilson story was going anywhere, why did they drop it? Well, because it had so many holes shot through it. The evidence looks like Rove didn't do anything and he's allowed any reporter to discuss it, waiving his confidentiality as a source. Moreover, Wilson's supposed debunking of the African uranium story ha been itself debunked; there is good evidence of Saddam trying to buy uranium from Africa. Bringing up the story again just shows that there was good reason to think Saddam had weapons.
The story was very weak but momentum and the anger of the left kept it going, especially since reporters are extremely invested in a story about reporters and sources. When it was bumped by Roberts it was actually good for everybody because the left just looked stupid pushing the story as Rove's downfall when the most conclusive part of the affair was that Saddam WAS trying to get uranium from Africa.
The Cindy Sheehan story isn't that much better, though. She veers close to very dangerous waters when she blames America and Israel for being attacked. The balance of the story is lost:
- her original description of the meeting with Bush was very positive, but then much later she said it was a negative meeting
- her family disagrees with her and thinks the son would not appreciate what she's doing
- she can't be reasonably cast as a simple grieving mother, given that she's using political consultants, press representatives, and even doing television ads
- she's way overplayed her hand on opposing the war by blaming America and Israel, which is very unpopular and damaging with most Americans, including moderate opponents of staying in Iraq
The longer the story goes on, the more pro-war people can point all this out. It will be very hard to overcome these mistakes because they're so hard to undo. If she changes her story and tries to partially recant her blaming of the US and Israel then she just looks like a politician, like her handlers and spin doctors have come in to do their work. It's a weak story on balance.
That said, there's still a real emotional appeal to be made and they're also going to pursue the populist thing about waiting on the road to talk to Bush. That'll keep the story going and they'll be waiting for Bush to speak with her. What do they really hope to gain from her speaking to him? It's not like he's suddenly going to reverse promises made to Congress, to allies, to soldiers and above all to the Iraqis and withdraw. What's he going to do, address Congress about his orders to withdraw the troops and suspend aid to Israel, then explain that some fallen Marine's mother told him to? Come on.
If I were Bush or his advisors, my suggestion would be to let the proxies make or not make the four arguments I listed above (the changed story, the son's opinion, the professional entourage, and blaming Israel) and to avoid any of them. They should mention that Bush already did have a meeting with her and that both sides thought it was a very positive one. Then they should schedule her to be included in a meeting -one that's already been scheduled- with Bush that includes the friends and relatives of other fallen soldiers. She can be squeezed in as part of a pre-arranged function in order to voice her concerns.
The president should thank her for her concerns and repeat his sorrow over her loss; then he should tell her that the terrorists are committed to our destruction, that their hatred has been boiling over at least since 1993 and arguably back to 1979, and that they are not rational people that will stop if we stop. They are the kind of people who murder over nothing but ethnicity, who butcher relatives for being gay, who slice up women for the crime of being raped, and who are so politically repressive that the dissent we've taken for granted for centuries is only now becoming a possibility there, and then only because of the efforts of our brave soldiers and of Arab dissidents.
It's not like she's going to assassinate him and she's not going to do anything more than words. If she uses the opportunity to insult the President then it just makes her look cheap. Bush doesn't have to meet with her, given her rhetoric, her status as a proxy of crazy leftwing types, and the fact that he already had a meeting with her. But I believe if he included her in a meeting with other parents it would undercut even the paltry populist and emotionalist arguments going right now, and it would give an opportunity for the President to prepare a concise, respectful, but forceful response in support of the War on Terror.
The long-term risk is that a lot of crazies would suddenly think they could consume all the President's time with their crazy theories. There are a lot of people in the country with all sorts of beliefs about aliens and the CIA and the Jews and so forth and making the President personally interact with all of them would be a waste of time and would present a security risk. By including her in a meeting already arranged for the benefit of others, it sets a far weaker precedent; she didn't get her own meeting, she got five minutes of somebody else's meeting.
And can I just say that if I died as a soldier or contractor overseas and a relative or friend of mine tried to manipulate the situation to do something that I would have fiercely opposed had I been around to do so, I'd be fiercely pissed off. That is not cool at all unless you acknowledge the opinion as your own. She's trying to use her son and herself as victims and martyrs when in reality it appears the son believed iun what he was doing. The disrespect in this situation comes from the mother until she acknowledges that her son would have or might have disagreed with what she's doing.
In conclusion, the left should be careful about embracing a political amateur as the cause of the week because they tend to say very unpolished things and can come off as crude and insensitive. They can't make their case on arguments or policy, so they've reduced themselves to cheap emotional pleas.
Idealism for Iraqis
by neolibertarian
Orin Kerr has an interesting idea about the debate over Iraq. He says that, assuming everyone in the debate wants the best for the US and Iraqi democracy, the division over the wisdom of the war in Iraq will bring us different interpretations of the same two options of staying or leaving now. Some people will believe that if the US stays the results will be good (option 1) while others believe staying would be disastrous (option 2). Some believe that if the US leaves now the results would be positive (option 3) and others think it would be horrific (option 4). The following is a comment I made to his post.
I don't think I've heard many people believably advance the idea that 3) is a likely outcome. The real debate is between anti-war people, who rank pessimistic leaving over pessimistic staying, and pro-war people, who rank optimistic staying over pessimistic leaving.
Although personally the aspect of the war more interesting to me is whether the Iraqis are seen as irrelevant or valuable. Most pro-war people, genuinely or not, characterize the Iraqis as valuable to defend. Most anti-war people characterize the Iraqis as irrelevant (not worth American dollars or soldiers). The opposite would be pro-war people unmoved by any Iraqi hardships before or after Saddam, and anti-war people who claim the Iraqis would benefit from withdrawing US intervention.
It's easy for somebody pro-war to claim to care about the Iraqis, since it costs nothing (except ethical consistency, if the beliefs are not sincere) to use it as one of many arguments for the war. It's very difficult for somebody anti-war to claim to care about the Iraqis, since in all likelihood the Iraqis would be all kinds of screwed-over if we left too soon (echoes of 1991 and the hundreds of thousands of Shi'a murdered when the US let Saddam put down the uprisings).
The combination of my four-choice-set and your three-choice-set (if 3 is excused as too improbable to be genuinely believed) is that the pro-war side has all the idealism. Since most of the leave-now arguments rely on pessimism about the war and not idealism about leaving, the pro-war arguments about fighting for freedom and democracy win the idealism award in that match-up. And since it's so difficult to claim to be motivated by love of humanity or liberty by consigning Iraqis to chaos, theocracy and terrorism, the pro-war people can easily continue to tout the benefits to regular Iraqis and again win the idealism contest.
Of course, simply being idealistic doesn't make you right, but the opposite (a stunning lack of ideals or idealism) suggests that baser interests like partisanship or amoral self-interest are at play.
