As much as I enormously respect Lawrence O'Donnell I disagree with his
view that Rush is
right and warn Democrats to not not buy into
the war policy, or the abuse of language, logic
and partisanship that has always surrounded it.
Here is what Bush wants: 35,000 more troops
for a two year war esclation, postponing the final crash until the next
President assumes
office, and accusing Democrats who oppose
this, of adopting the surrender policy as labelled
by Rush or being surrender monkeys as labelled by the New York Post.
Lets get this straight: escalating the disastrous
mistakes of this war is not victory; opposing this
esclation is not surrender. Period. Bush is
wrong, Rush is wrong, the New York Post is
wrong, the escalation is wrong, the two year
war plan is wrong, and Democrats are wrong
if they believe that Rush is right.
Lets get this straight: the only surrender was
when Bush surrendered at Tora Bora and let
Osama Bin Laden escape.
Even the political analysis is wrong: in fact this
two year war escalation that is being privately
and now publicly pushed is not only mistaken
military policy, it will divide and and could well doom the Republican
Party which run as the
Iraq war party, again, in 2008.
My position was always different than most Democrats and Republicans in
Washington: I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.
Having long been involved in military policy as a Sam Nunn Democrat, it
did not take research for me to know that the commander structure
of the United States Army and United States Marine Corps did not like
this policy at all.
Representations to the contrary by George W. Bush and others were simply
dishonest, which
as the original sin of this war, which began with
the abuse of language, logic, truth and politics.
Having been involved in intelligence policy for many years, it did not
take research for me to know immediately that the WMD argument
was a fraud, that there grave doubts in the intelligence community from
the beginning that were not reported by a lazy and supplicant media.
Or by Democrats and Washington
insiders who knew, but for political reasons, did not say.
So, when I saw Colin Powell at the United Nations with George Tenet
proudly behind
him, I knew it was a misrepsentation, as did many in the intelligence
community at the time, and many of our commanders at
the time, and many Congressional Democrats and Republicans at the time.
They knew, but they pretended. The sin of this war was that it was based
on lies and misrepresentations from the beginning, which many knew, but
refused to say.
My disagreement with Rush and Lawrence, is this: this was never about
democracy, nor was it about 9-11, nor is about civil war, nor is it
about victory, nor is it about defeat, nor is it about surrender as Rush
says and Lawrence agrees.
The surrender argument today is just as wrong
as the mushroom cloud argument, the WMD
smoking gun argument, the stay the course
argument, and the whole litany of lies and
innuendo used to attack anyone who opposed
this policy.
The minute we use these words, we abuse
the language, we distort the reality, we use misrepresentation
(democracy) or emotion (victory and defeat) to let bad money follow bad
money, to loose more good lives following the loss of previous good
lives, to emotionally blackmail or mislead the American people into more
casualties, catastrophes and deaths.
Support the President's escalation, they will
say, or you are an appeaser, a surrenderist,
which is utter and complete nonsense. Have
Republicans learned anything in the four years
of this war, when they repeat the mistakes?
Have Democrats learned anything, when they
fall into the trap of accepting neocon language
in the arsenal of Republican partisanship?
It was not democracy for Bush to invade Iraq to install Mr. Chalabi as
the American chosen Prime Minister, the core vision of the policy. The
only issue with Mr. Chalabi is whether he ultimately will be proven an
American stooge or an Iranian stooge, but he was never any democratic
value for the people of Iraq. That was a fraud and lie from the
beginning and everyone who knew about Iraq knew it was a fraud and lie,
General Zinni got in trouble for testifying about this in the 1990s.
Naming an American Proconsul, Mr. Bremer, was never about democracy;
running the
Reconstruction Authority with Republican operatives was never democracy;
rewarding Republican supporting companies with big contracts was never
about democracy; and covering up their scandal was never about
democracy; misrepresenting war to our
people was never democracy; challenging
the patriotism of its opponents was never democracy; Abu Ghraib was not
democracy; Guantanamo was not democracy; lying about intel was not
democracy; covering up the Senate report was not democracy.
And so forth.
The danger today, is we turn the catastrophe that exists into continuing
and escalating catastrophe tomorrow, by becoming trapped in the
linguistics of lies, and emotionally blackmailed by the false
linguistics of victory or defeat, triumph or surrender.
The President has a problem, psychologically as well as politically and
militarily. If he cannot admit he was wrong, he escalates. If he cannot
take action that is what he calls victory, he escalates. If he does not
want to end this war, he refuses to change, and defines his opponents as
wanting to surrender.
To follow the Baker Hamlton plan, which is imperfect but a dramatic
improvement from what we have, and I fear what we will have after the
President announces what could be a disastrous escalation, is NOT
surrender.
Baker Hamilton is a multi-year phase down, not a surrender. Baker
Hamilton is a turnover to Iraqis, not a surrender. Baker Hamilton is a
slow motion reversal of policy, with a slow motion transferrence of
responsiblity, not a surrender.
Baker Hamilton should be amended; it might work; it might not; but
increasing the chances for an acceptable outcome is not surrender,
regardless of the odds.
Many of us, who were critics of this war before it began, were also
critics of the battle plan the minute it was force fed to commanders who
disliked it. We called for more troops from the beginning, more body
armor and protected vehicles from the beginning, more training and a
lower combat role for Americans from the beginning. We warned that such
a huge and dominating role for American troops would
prevent Iraqis from taking control. We also opposed the quasi-colonial
running of the Iraq Reconstruction from the beginning.
I repeat: all of these dangers were known in the early 1990's when Bush
41 wisely chose to not go to Baghdad. They were known in the late 1990's
when Zinni testified. They were known the week after 9-11 when Wolfowitz
pushed for war. They were known yesterday, are known today, and will be
known tomorrow by a national security establishment that let our country
down disastrously, in both parties, from the beginning of this
misbegotten war.
To reverse American policy today, to phase down, phase out, de-escalate,
lower the casualties, increase the responsibility of Iraqis in ways that are
decisive, is not surrender.
It is not surrender to say Iraqis must take real responsiblity for their
own country.
It is not surrender, it is long overdue.
It is not surrender, it is telling Iraqis that it is their country.
It is not surrender, it somewhat increases the probability that we
remove a leading cause of the chaos, an American occupation that Iraqi
people do not want, that Iraqi leaders should not depend on
indefinitely.
We can debate how, and how fast, we reverse the policy.
But: intervening in a civil war indefinitely is not
victory.
And: extricating our country from this disaster,
is not a surrender.
Sadly: our president is on the brink of yet
another catastrophic mistake, another false use of language and logic,
another creation of more false fears, for yet another increase in troop
strength, that will make a miserable situation catastrophically worse.
Therefore: The President's policy will never
lead to victory. Reversing this policy should never be called surrender.
Changing this policy should be Priority Number 1. If President Bush
agrees, we should help him, but if he resists, as it appears he will, we
should oppose him, with greater conviction than ever.
Sadly the President appears determined to push the problem into the
hands of the next
President with a two year war plan, asking for
35,000 more troops. This is not the road to
victory, it would mark the true surrender of
common sense, to obsessions that have done
enough damage, already, for one President,
and our country.