|
||
Years Late in Changing Our Tactics in Iraq
Basically, Hillary Clinton was right. We need to combine hard military power with the soft power of our attraction (that she refers to at the end of her speech) into a smart power strategy. We failed to do that in Iraq. We lacked adequate forces to suppress the looting and the outbreak of the insurgency in May 2003. It is difficult for AID to build schools and clinics when workers are under fire. We are doing somewhat better in Afghanistan, but the Administration foolishly diverted resources away for the mistaken invasion of Iraq. I argued six months ago that the current "surge" was likely to produce some military improvements, but that success would depend on major political compromise among the three main factions. There is little sign of this occurring, and thus the military gains are not likely to last. We are years late in changing our tactics. We also need to learn to avoid dangerous illusions about invasions transforming the Middle East. It would be nice to think we will never have another war, but that is unlikely. Thus we will need a strong military, better tactics, and greater wisdom about how to combine our hard and soft power into a smart strategy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A more direct link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8vm6AsZw40
Ben
Just a reminder, Joe, of what genuine liberal leadership looks like.
Bobby Kennedy's Mindless Menace of Violence speech, April 1968
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E2896892D70C92F1
Hillary Clinton is a far cry, right now. She's not a bad person. She could improve. But she's not our best offering, right now.
Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/
If the general public did not understand the people of the middle east and did not understand the threats----why didn't those in Govt listen to those who did know ?
There were several people---who said don't invade IRAQ and didn't believe there were WMDs left over from a dozen years ago.
Even the country of JORDAN who was perhaps kind-of-a friend at that time said NO--because in essense we were not going to take people away from ISLAM---who want to be enslaved to it.
Democracy will only work if people want it and that should be obvious.
There is something more dangerous than Bush trying to lose 3 wars: an accidental nuclear war. Present policies are making this more likely. What aren't we doing anything? For discussion see my blog
Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com
Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
It is not the left that caused everything to fail and look bad but the right, the Bush administration in particular. The left has not caused it but, again and again, failed to prevent it. And these failures could have been prevented. For many examples, including what to do about Iraq, and what to do in the future, see my blog
Science blog
impunv.wordpress.com
or
impunv.blogspot.com
Political blog
randomabsurdities.wordpress.com
And she better say a whole lot more than the standard campaign vanity appeals that she makes in this speech and in most speeches (her taking after Obama about experience is all about appealing to the vanity of older voters who perpetually imagine that their age means more than it does, especially more substantial thought which is clearly more important and which Obama offers) if she wants to win my vote and, more importantly, my confidence in her as a commander-in-chief.
She overplayed this hand of chasing-every-political-wind-available a long time ago, and her unfavorables reflect that.
Unless she says something seriously different and strays from the safest political waters that she has tried to stick tight to for the last 7 years, I am one independent with serious liberal affiliations who will be working actively to defeat her.
Playing it safe isn't leadership, Joe. In this case, with as many lives that were lost as there was, it was cowardice. Hillary Clinton doesn't deserve to be rewarded for her cowardice. And Barak Obama deserves to be rewarded for his courage. And if doesn't win this Democratic nomination, then someone who maintains an unequivocal commitment to taking responsibility for the mess we've help create in Iraq who has moderate credentials, like Rudy Guliani, deserves that office. Either way, Hillary will never win my respect as long as she pretends like her cowardice is more genuine courage and leadership than it really is. She either apologizes or she shows remorse or she'll never win my vote any more than George Bush would win another vote from me for the same and most deadly sin: pride.
Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/
It's kind of an ironic title to a post endorsing Hillary Clinton, isn't it, Joe?
Years late. You mean, like in opposing the war?
Hillary Clinton had a perfect opportunity to question this war, up front, and she passed it up because it wasn't politically popular, no matter how many American and Iraqi lives were on the line. And now she opposes the war when it's popular. How convenient, huh?
And you seem to have a pretty low standard for substance endorsing this speech, Joe. There's not much substance to it. It's largely boilerplate.
Barak Obama isn't saying everything I want him to say right now - if he doesn't say he's going to stick with this war, I'm voting for Rudy Guliani, who I can only hope will win the nomination over Fred Thompson; a Hillary Clinton-Fred Thompson election year would mean having to choose from the worst of all instincts in both parties - but Obama is engaging this debate more openly and honestly. He doesn't pretend, as Ms. Clinton does, that silence means more than it does. Obama is thinking. Hillary is campaigning. Even in that speech. Which makes it all the more disappointing for you to endorse that fluff as more substantial than it really is.
If Hillary wins that nomination, I'm crossing party lines, assuming an unacceptable candidate doesn't surface out of the Republican primaries. She says nothing. She leads nowhere. She follows every political wind, no matter which bad directions it takes her and us. She is not leadership material. She is a consumate politician, in all the worst senses of that word. I disagree with Rudy about plenty. But at least he thinks for himself. Same with Obama. Hillary thinks with her polls, largely, which makes her dangerous with power. She needs some serious humbling, right now, is what she needs.
The Iraqis have already told us that they want us out of their country. Why would they want to accept our "help," when we refuse to listen to them?
Since it seems virtually certain that our delusions of grandeur and illusions of omnipotence will keep us on the warpath for the forseeable future, those who salivate over dreams of America becoming the neo-imperialist power of the 21st will do well to carefully consider the three most important lessons that should have been learned from the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.
1. When ideological passions takes precedence over objectives carefully considered and pursued with sober and deliberate process, we are not committing our troops to engage in war, but in wanton slaughter and murder.
2. The support and goodwill of the people will inevitably turn into angry tides of recrimination and contempt once the people realize that they have been consistently misinformed, deceived, and lied to by those in whom they've invested their trust.
3. We are not the good guys simply because we anoint ourselves as such through the power of our propaganda, influence of our wealth, and strength of our military. Good guys do not trample upon moral principles to achieve self-serving goals.
www.charlestwilliams.com
Hillary is NOT right. The ONLY correct strategy was never to invade Iraq in the first place. (Why do we keep forgetting that?)
Unfortunately, there is still no good way to correct our mistake NOW.
The only sense in which Hillary Clinton is "right" is as opposed to "left." Further, I am really tired of hearing about the "mistaken" invasion of Iraq. IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE.
Bush and Cheney went after the oil, as they had decided to do before they stole office, and they literally did not care what else happened--the destruction of vital infrastructure, the slaughter of civilians, the illegal imprisonment and torture of random people, the needless deaths of U.S. troops, the swelling ranks of mercenaries, were all incidental to trying to secure Iraq's oil and give away money to their corporate cronies.
There was no "mistake" involved in the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq--just a complete lack of concern for anybody who got in the way.
Clinton's latest stance on the war in Iraq is one of several reasons I will not vote for her, nominated or not. The issue is not the stupidity of the Bush administration in carrying out the war. The issue is that there should never have an invasion of Iraq to begin with. Period, end of story.
Joseph Nye's position is republican-lite and will cost democrats a slam dunk election. Americans want out--listen to the electorate.
In other words, we can nation build. It's just the republicans who can't. Will Amerika ever actually retreat from its hubris and accept the inherent, yes, inherent, limits of its power? Looks like that is unlikely. Wow!
People on this blog seem to have bought into the Rovian myth that Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry Lady Macbeth. I am sooo tired of all this Hillary bashing. Is she ambitious? Of course she is, or she wouldn't be running for president! Is she political? Of course she is, what politician isn't? Is she a latter Day Nixon? Please! Is she Bush-Cheney Lite? Spare me!
And enough of the "But Hillary hasn't apologized" whining about her Iraq vote. I also opposed the war from the beginning; but we have to focus on what's next. She is committed to ending the war. Nuff said!
Progressives and liberals, please get real and remember that the perfect (which doesn't exist) is the enemy of the good! My battle cry for the 2008 election: Remember 2000! Nader's candidacy killed Gore. Period.
The ideal ticket at this point would be Clinton-Obama. This should allay concerns of people who are worried about the electability of a woman OR a black man. But if they team up, we're talking about two powerful (numerically) constituencies that can help us to MAKE HISTORY!
Right now, of the viable candidates, I favor Edwards, then Obama. I love what Kucinich and Gravel are saying, but they don't stand a chance.
Hillary may indeed be the Democratic nominee. Then we may have to hold our noses and vote for her.
She may end up getting my vote, but never my heart or passion. It's all about "triangulation" and "calculation" and the "politics" of things with her. She doesn't give a shit about the "people". All she cares about is the "power".
Let's put it this way -- she's a lot closer to Lady Macbeth than she is to Mother Teresa.
radlib: Obama is HRC's sock puppet. Doesn't carry the timber to be POTUS YET. Better ticket that could win is Richardson/Edwards or Edwards/Richardson. Not perfect but quite supportable. As to HRC and holding your nose. Go ahead and you'll guarentee a Bush clone for at least the next four years if not longer. Our close personal friend K. Rove invites you to do just that. He'll even send you a crying hanky. You'll need it. The time for this blind pied piper like loyalty is past. DEMAND BETTER.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
