Iraq, Iraq, Iraq: Remember the Bush Quagmire on Feb. 5

For what it's worth, I'm voting for Barack Obama in the California primary on Feb. 5.

For me, the clincher is the war (read: occupation; read: foreign policy fiasco). In case you've been lulled lately into MSM complacency about it, allow me to remind you: We're still throwing serious money and invaluable lives and limbs down that hellhole, with no inkling of a strategy for winning or exit. Why, pray tell, are we still dug in there, folks? The worldwide cost to our credibility is enormous, and the backlash and blowback will return to haunt us for many years to come. We need a candidate who speaks the truth about Iraq, rather than one who needs to triangulate around it.

If the general election comes down to McCain vs. Obama, then the campaign becomes a national referendum on the war. The GOP will have to defend it at every turn. Does the U.S. public really want to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years, as McCain grimly proposes?

If the general election comes down to McCain vs. Clinton, then the question becomes, which of those two candidates has the biggest balls, which of them can out-tough the other? On that score, on the machismo meter, Clinton will seem to be a poor man's version of McCain (my gendered language is deliberate). Even if Clinton wins, I don't foresee her pulling out of Iraq anytime soon. She will not risk the inevitable right-wing charge: Who lost Iraq? Who walked away from all that oil? Who abandoned those military bases?

Philip Roth has said that Hillary Clinton, if she becomes the nominee, stands a good chance of losing all 50 states.

Philip Roth may be right.

In my view, misogyny runs deeper than racism in this country (case in point: the 15th Amendment was passed 50 years before the 19th amendment -- that is, giving African-American men the vote was, evidently, more compelling and less threatening than enfranchising women).

I'd love to be proven wrong about that. I hate to accede to sexism. On the other hand, I don't want the Democrats to blow it.

Obama appeals somehow to both progressives and independents. He also won't rile up and galvanize the anti-Clinton crowd. He'll continue to attract the grassroots and netroots energy of the youth brigade.

The prevailing argument in favor of Hillary is that she has the experience and the moxie to take on the vast rightwing neo-con military-industrial complex. She can stand up to the boys. She's strong. The bastards won't be able to steamroll her. Problem is, she won't be taking on the military-industrial complex. Instead, she'll try to prove that she can work with them. When it comes to Iraq, she won't want to be seen as a girly peacenik.

If this bloody, costly, senseless war horrifies you, the choice should be pretty clear: Obama. To some, that will seem to be an intemperate endorsement. My sense, however, is that as the campaign and the war drag on (a "surge" is no longer but a "surge" after 18 months), even cooler heads will draw a similar judgment.

Comments

[Herrington]

Journeyman points and well made. I would add a wildcard.

An Obama presidency would send a message to the world of a complete break in foreign policy with the Bush administration. That is not just speculation. Foreign opinion polls support it.

And signaling a break with Bushco will be a powerful step in tamping down the anti-American militancy that has swept the world since Bush's war began. Where there were 2000 terrorist before, there are 200,000 now. Bush is the difference.

So I submit that just the fact of electing Obama will increase the security of the Untied States, make diplomacy easier, and defuse countless local "who hates America most" rivalries.

[OutsideLookingIn]

"Why, pray tell, are we still dug in there, folks? The worldwide cost to our credibility is enormous, and the backlash and blowback will return to haunt us for many years to come."

This is true, but the cost to your credibility will be even worse if you just walk away from the mess you've made and leave it to others to clean up.

[tumblewind]

The Republican's remind us every two minutes what this war is about! With all of their inane and moronic catchy phrases that only an idiot would buy into! I feel like banging my head against the nearest wall in frustration. Ignorance in seemingly intelligent people drives me up the wall. This Republican bunch has a corner on ignorance. Regime change never solves any problems it only creates bigger ones and leaves a void that can't be filled. Iraq is a prime example of that. It will be the same way if they try toppling Iran, Pakistan or Syria. But, the Republican's don't comprehend that small fact. They think sheer military power is the answer to everything and it isn't.

[wsblake]

The Republicans and the MSM started a long time ago defending the war. Does anyone actually believe this so called "surge" was anything but a political manueveur to create the illusion that the US is "winning " in Iraq. MSM pundits for weeks now already discuss the War in Iraq as actually having been won, and they are already busily degrading anyone who discussed a timetable as defeatists and traitors. It's only going to get worse for antiwar candidates. Just witness the success of McCain- this nutjob is certfiably insane and yet may very well be the next president. Americans will never learn.

[LeonBNJ]

The war in Iraq is destroying our economy, our place in the world and too many of ours and Iraqi lives. Most Americans really don't give 2 cents about the Iraqi people, and whether we stay or leave, Iraq will go into a long and painful civil war. If you assume the real reason for going into Iraq was over oil, then to pay for that war and 'occupation' oil would have to be taxed at $200/bbl in taxes for generations. Instead of higher oil taxes, we instead borrow from China with a very high cost long term in money and economic security.
While Obama may not be the ideal choice, I will still take him far over Hillary Clinton in part for his ability to win the office of President over any warmongering Republican.

[esl]

Does the fact that Obama voted for every funding bill since he has been in Congress mean nothing to you? Do you believe that actions speak louder than words? Don't you know that women, Democrat and Republican, will vote for Hillary mainly because we are infuriated over the sexism in the press, in the blogs, in our churches, and in our SCHOOLS. And if Obama wins the mud will be heavier than ever and may be deserved.

[tao53nyc]

Indeed. Iraq x 3. I'm voting for Ron Paul for exactly the same reasons. Go figure. But he'll also bring the troops home from the 700 bases in the 130 other countries where they're stationed, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. Funny no one on the Democratic side talks about that - or a non-interventionist foreign policy. No one on the "progressive" side has said ANYTHING about repealing the Patriot Act, putting new strength in FISA, restoring habeas corpus and military commissions. and ending the practices of renditioning and waterboarding, among countless others. No Democrat has spoken against the "homegrown terrorist" act still pending in the Senate - something that would silence vocal opposition forever. No they haven't. Because Hillary and Obama CAN'T WAIT to get their hands on these new toys that the Bush Administration has given them. Neither of these candidates have a shred of moral principle or moral virtue that a decent human need respect. But "progressives" don't care. They just want to be "in power" again, whatever it takes. But nothing will really change.

[argent1]

One reason why we are still stuck in Iraq is that Obama has been voting to fund the war. He could have tried to fillibuster to show his consistent convictions on ending the war. Or he could have made long inspiring speeches on the Senate floor to show his true leadership qualities bringing Democrats and Republicans together as he inspires his supporters on the campaign trail. But maybe it wasn't his time yet in the Senate to do so, he didn't have enough experience there. His impatience with how the government actually has worked for the last 217 years is going to make him the next president???
Obama has been playing along with Washington politicians, he's smart and Harvard trained. He fits right in where he should stay as long as Ted Kennedy has. Teddy has passed more legislation than any Senator in history. Maybe Barack can go for the record if he takes some political steroids. He can continue to have his favorite Senator, Joe- "Bomb Iran, McCain 2008,"- Lieberman tutor him.
It was Dennis Kucinich in the House that had been totally consistent, Obama supporters never heard of him. Kucinich does make inspiring speeches too- but who listened? He ran for president but who voted for him?
Faced with this truth, better to go with the devil we really know, Hillary, than the one we really don't. At least it will satisfy the need for closure in the Liberals war with the Far Right. We ain't done fighting them yet. They need a good pounding before we can have a real truce.

[SallyLee]

John McCain has said he would defer to Gen Petraeus on Iraq war policy. Our president should not let David Pteraeus dictate Iraq war policy any more than Harry Truman let Douglas McArthur manage policy in the Korean war.

[tjruler]

Clinton is a non-option. She's hated by too many Repubs (ie white males) who respond to her femininity and former record in a viceral manner. It would cripple her Presidency and keep us form progress.

Vote Obama Feb 5. He's our only chance to move towards ending the war... so we can focus on the looming Energy and Healthcare behemoths.

[jmpurser]

If you're a liberal or progressive like me then it's time to face up to the fact that we don't have a candidate running any more.

See ya in 2012.

[desmirl]

One of the other columns tonight tells us that, corrected for inflation, the Pentagon is spending as much on the phony "War on Terror" as our forefathers spent on defeating the Axis in WWII. General Smedley Butler wrote "War is a Racket" a long time ago and it has never been more true than today. Bush and his greedy, immoral cronies have invented the never-ending war, and its purpose is to bleed the taxpayers (and their descendants) bone dry for the benefit of the fat cats in the Military/Industrial Complex. And still some can't wait to vote for McCain so this madness can continue.

[10ghostcommander]

John Seery has forgotten--there are over 75 million adult women in this country. Many women will vote for Hillary even if they are Republicans. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Obama or Clinton will win by a vote of 65-35 percent. Who wants a rubber stamper Demagogue/Charlatan as President--that is "Baghdad Bob"John McCain standing in the market in Baghdad with a vest on and surrounded by American troops telling, not only the American people, but the World that Baghdad was safe--telling a Big Lie for the Bush/Cheney mis-administration. He will just be another puppet and not a President for the people. Go Obama! Go Hillary!

[kevinabt]

Ron Paul has a much tougher stance against the military industrial complex, the global military empire and the war in Iraq than any other candidate. He has been out front fighting those consistently for a long time.

[GPRogueCowboy]

Yup the surge is working for someone, but I can’t figure out who. According to news articles there were about 2000 Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq in January 2007 and the “SURGE” has resulted in killing or capturing about 500 in the past year. The US has spent over $100 Billion in the past year, Iraq has spent about $4 Billion and our “ALLIES” have spent about $1 Billion. Please check my math. If I divide 500 into $105 Billion my calculator says it cost $210 Million per Bad Guy killed or captured.

“The 500 Al Qaeda captured or killed in the past year have cost $210 Million each, plus 1000 American Lives, 5000 Wounded Americans, 2000 Iraqi Military Lives, 5,000 Iraqi Military wounded, and over 15,000 Iraqi civilians killed”!

What if we posted a reward of $25 Million for each Al Qaeda captured or killed and we just left Iraq except for a small contingent of protect and disburse the cash?
If we paid for 1000 Bad Guys the cost would only be $25 Billion.

2008 will cost over $130 Billion and the permanent bases Bush and McCain want will probably cost another $500 Billion.

Grants Pass, OR