Washblog || We're not that far apart

We're not that far apart

By switzerblog
Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:07:07 AM PST
Section: Washington State Topic: Democrats

More so than other states, we have a strong "anti-war"* contingent leading the charge against Iraq. It's a coalition of pacifists, veterans, those with loved ones in Iraq, plain ol' Democrats opposed to the direction in Iraq, and a host of others. This coalition is so robust that much has been made of the rift in the Party and those who would exploit that rift, both inside and outside the Party. This group has made great inroads and achieved successes, and has become a strong force in local politics. Yet they continue to complain of being downtrodden, trivialized, overlooked and ignored. What is this about? Is this rift even real?

In some ways, it is. Over the last few months, I and people like me have been called shills and sell-outs, told we don't have the necessary life experience to know what war is, have chosen Party loyalty over morality, have blood on our hands (that never gets old), or assured that if we had a loved one in Iraq our thinking would change. Conversely, way too many progressives who don't agree with this coalition have used the name-calling and motive-assigning game, assuring these folks that they're just working to elect a Republican, they're too self-involved to see reality, or just plain stupid. All of this is just blah blah blah...and it's the only actual rift that exists.

Because really, there is no rift. There is unanimous agreement among Democrats (Joementum excepted) that we need to get out of Iraq. I'll say it again for my friends who are currently doing a slow burn at my dismissive tone towards their beliefs. There is unanimous agreement that we need to get out of Iraq.

I happen to not be part of this "anti-war"* coalition. Not because I love war like a warm blanket, but because I disagree with the conclusions they've drawn. And this is the rub - this is the only place where actual disagreement exists. Not the question of "what", but the question of "how". Ask any Democrat anywhere (not Joe) what we should do with regard to Iraq, they'll tell you, we've got to get out of there. Ask the any Democrat anywhere how to achieve that aim, you'll get about a million different answers.

Here are the things on which we all agree:

war is bad
killing innocent people is abhorrent
we should not have gone to Iraq
Iraq is not going well
without Iraq, many of the atrocities (Haditha, etc), would have been avoided
permanent bases in Iraq = bad
we need to get out

With the exception of number 4 in that list, these are issues about which you can get 95% agreement within the Democratic party (and that one's about 85% - Joe does have his fans). We are united in opposition to the decision to have gone there in the first place. We are united in our revulsion at the killing, torture, rape, and commensurate pain and suffering. We are united that we don't belong there long-term. And for those who have suggested as much, I don't need to have a loved one in Iraq to know how bad war, innocent deaths, and Iraq are.

But the next questions are how long should we be there, under what circumstances do we leave, what will our withdrawal mean for Iraq, and how does the withdrawal happen. And those, my friends, are much more difficult questions, IMO, than the "anti-war"* folks think they are. It is not clear, at all, how long we should be there. We did break Iraq, and while cutesy sayings like "you break it, you buy it" are bullshit, the breaking unleashed some things that Iraq itself is not currently equipped to handle. We all agree the sooner we're out, the better, but that's as close as we're going to get. It's virtually impossible to picture the circumstances under which we could get out. Peace isn't going to happen, whether we stay or go. The Iraqi forces are actually already shouldering more of the burden than most people think, but they're still much too weak and ideologically compromised to be truly effective. Our withdrawal or lack of it means the same thing for Iraq: explosive Shiite/Sunni violence. That nonsense has already begun. What is exceedingly unclear is whether our staying or our leaving would cause the violence to get significantly worse - and that's really the question we need to be able to answer. How the withdrawal happens, I think, has been addressed by John Murtha - I think most "anti-war"* and warmongers like me all agree that phased rapid withdrawal will be the best method, when we do it.

Two questions are raised here:

can the Iraqis manage their own affairs
what's worse for Iraq (and America's security) - our staying, or our withdrawing

As for the first question, the answer currently seems to be "no". When or if they'll soon be able to manage their own affairs is an open question for smarter folks than I, but it simply is inhuman to think that we should leave them incapacited governmentally or militarily. And, a little tip: No one else is going to come in there at this point. The option of getting EU forces or other Middle East countries to come in and provide security is long gone. That ship sailed about 8 Bush cowboy moments ago. As for the second question, no one can predict if the situation will get worse or better if we get out. The "insurgents", at least the ones from outside Iraq, will certainly either make Iraq a base for international terrorism or they'll move to other countries still friendly to them. They'll never lack for work. The Iraqis, though...what of the sectarian violence? Will the Shiites join Al Qaeda or the Iranians (because if we pull out of Iraq, we're going to Iran. Well, we're going into Iran either way), continuing to escalate the risk to America's security? Or, lacking our big Stryker targets, will they turn even more violently on their Sunni neighbors, further destabilizing Iraq's government and security apparatus and giving Al Qaeda a sizable and resource-rich safe haven (continuing to escalate the risk to America's security)? Or, will the outside insurgents go home with a job well done, and the Shiite and Sunni, glad to finally have the Americans out, heave a sigh of relief and get down to the work of building a multi-sectarian homeland for themselves? Or any of the myriad (mostly very bad) shade in between all these choices.

If any of you can truly say you know, for damn, absolute sure, that things will be better for Iraqis and for us if we withdraw, please immediately remove yourself to northern Virginia and seek a job with the CIA, State Department, or DOD. They could use your brand of genius/psychic ability.

So this brings us to the real rift. Not "what" we do, but "how" we do it. It's a real debate, and it's the debate, most importantly, that we're all avoiding, because from this debate will come the plan that gets our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neices and nephews, aunts and uncles back home on safe American soil. Debating the rightness or wrongness of war only sets us at odds with each other. Discussing how, exactly, to craft a plan and implement it, and what the situation needs to look like before the plan is triggered, is the surest path to electoral and more importantly, moral success. In other words, let's talk with each other about what to do instead of shouting at each other about why to do it.

A note about Maria Cantwell before I go.

Maria Cantwell, Washington state's Democratic demon-spawn, has in fact much to recommend her. She's been an environmental champion and bruising advocate for women's rights. She's beginning to get on the Patty Murray train for veteran's rights. She single-handedly beat back the FERC and Enron to save Snohomish county over $100 million. This is no corporate DLC shill - she's just not a liberal. She views the world and free-markets differently than you or I do. If that's reason to vote against her, fair enough. She isn't a nice person, that is well known. But to suggest that she's anything but less than honest is downright foolish. She's never shied away from her own beliefs - on Iraq, she's been upfront with us: she believed as far back as the '90's that Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed. Hence, she will never "apologize" or believe she was wrong to vote for the IWR, because she wasn't voting for Bush's trumped-up nonsense - she had her own reasons that still ring true to her. She tends to believe in the free market and open trade agreements - she comes from corporate America. While her beliefs bring her closer to the DLC than to us, it's idiotic, frankly, to suggest that this is because of some flood of corporate money. Check the FEC reports - she doesn't take PAC money (kiss my ass, Josh Feit). Argue about the disagreements, that's fair and I happily stand out of the way because I will never defend the reasoning behind Cantwell's beliefs. But I will defend vigorously against the idea that her beliefs are not her own. I have a strong sense of fairness, and I think it's more than fair to try to change her mind; that's democracy. It isn't fair, given all the evidence we have about her thinking, to suggest that her mind is not her own.

I will stand with you, my friends, and gladly support any efforts (which, without exception, have been admirable) to bring an end to this ugly action in the Middle East. I know the overwhelming majority of those you think are against you share my support for your goals, if not always your methods. but we have to stop this useless fighting over whether or not war is bad and who's a real Democrat and who isn't. Let's stop talking about problems and start solving them, together.

*anti-war is in quotes here. Why, Switzer, why? Because aside from the pacifists, no one in this coalition is really anti-war, they're just anti-Iraq-war. The media, right-wing radical nutcases and progressives who are tired of being yelled at overuse this tag, but for brevity, it works here (in quotes, o' course). I could have used "peace and justice", but that's a meaningless semantic twist to avoid being labeled. And it has lots of letters.

< Inslee: I-937 is this year's most important climate change task in WA | U.S. Rep. Brian Baird - WA stands with 'Operation House Call' in DC >

We're not that far apart | 25 comments (25 topical)

The "how"

A reasonable plan for getting out of Iraq would depend on an accurate assessment of the situation there. There isn't a consensus among Democrats about that situation.

For example, I agree with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who says that the Iraqi government, strictly speaking, isn't a government because it doesn't govern anything to speak of outside the Green Zone.

Al-Sadr wants control of the Ministry of Health as a way of building up his organization in the same way that Hezbollah built up its organization with social services. That's not exactly what I would call governance--or at least national governance.

Brzezinski says that when we leave the real leaders in Iraq will emerge. He doesn't elaborate. I assume the real leaders are the ones who can muster support, backed by force, in the absence of an occupying force. Brzezinski has suggested Sistani may be one of those leaders. Who knows?

If you believe, as I do, that the Green Zone government is propped up by the US and will always be propped up by the US, even if we stay twenty-five years, then it's only a question of postponing the inevitable. It's quite possible, and even likely in my view, that postponing the decision will only make matters worse in the long run. We are a destablizing force in the region. That should be apparent by now.

Of course, few agree with this assessment and conclusion. I understand that. As a strategic matter, I support the peace movement's efforts to underline how bad things are in Iraq. I just don't think we'll decide to leave until it dawns on us just how futile our occupation is there.

Again, I get that not everyone agrees with this. I would even say that very reasonable people can take various very reasonable positions on the war. Part of our differences stem from starting from different assumptions. I think it would be good if we could examine those various assumptions in a dispassionate way.

by DWE on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:40:07 AM PST

* 1 5.00 6 *

I hate you by switzerblog, 07/18/2006 09:44:13 AM PST (5.00 / 2)

Oh, I've been known to be by DWE, 07/18/2006 12:31:36 PM PST (none / 0)

The "Debate" is On

Great post Switzer. Now let's examine a couple of points:

Not to split hairs, but 85% and 95% are not unanimous percentages - great majority consensus but not unanimous. I only point this out because in this state we have a couple of elected Democrats who help bring down the average on both points three and four.

As to question one let me suggest to you that (IMO) it is condescending to suggest that Saddam and his regime were the only group capable of governing and securing that country. There was a time when the Iraqi military was respected all over the region. Surely they are not dead or gone now. Iraq (in one form or another) has been around for centuries and has watched western intruders come and go with some regularity. Now we (the U.S.) may not like the way the country is governed without our "guiding" hand - one reason we helped to install Saddam in the first place - but they are intelligent and capable and don't need (or desire) our assistance.

Question two is a loaded one (I'm sure you knew that though). I fall into the camp (with John Murtha and (now) John Kerry) that says our continuing presence is making matters worse than they need be for the Iraqi people. As for the foreign insurgents (projected to be around 15% of the actual insurgency) "we" continue to invite them into Iraq with our insistence that "we want to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". As for the sectarian violence, I don't know what anyone else expected was going to happen when "we" created the power vacuum left deposing Saddam. The violence exists nevertheless and will be there whether we stay or leave. It is something the Iraqis have dealt with over their history and they alone will need to resolve it. It is not our issue to solve.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that so long as the United States military remains in Iraq in large numbers, we pose a threat to the fragile stability of the entire Middle East.

Finally, thank you for your comments on Maria Cantwell. I have been trying to explain for months that Maria went into the invasion of Iraq with her eyes wide open and has yet to recant on that count. That is why I have repeatedly stated that no amount of "pressure" is going to move her from that position (not even hiring Mark Wilson). Now all of your points about her on the environmental front are great but over the course of the next six years there will be more decisions to be made similar to Iraq. My question remains, how will she vote? I do not feel comfortable with the answer as I now expect it to be.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

by The Left Shue on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:29:36 AM PST

* 3 5.00 2 *

Addendum by The Left Shue, 07/18/2006 11:16:10 AM PST (5.00 / 2)

That's just how I see it. by dinazina, 07/18/2006 11:28:18 AM PST (4.83 / 6)

Violence/war profiteers

A critically important step to reducing the amount of violence is getting the Iraqi infrastructure rebuilt, the economy, services, and daily life back on line. Whether or not US or international personnel are there to help do that -- the US certainly owes the Iraqi people substantial economic help to make that happen. We owe it for the harm we've done. More so, we owe it because it's a prerequisite for stabilization -- our main goal, no?

The best police and military security is not going hold back violence in current conditions. The war profiteers like Halliburton are in large part responsible for the hell-hole conditions there now.

This needs to be considered, I think, in any planning for withdrawal. Getting the profiteers out and some real help in. I would have put it, Switzer, in your list of things we agree on -- that the war profiteers must go. The corporate charters of these corporations should be revoked and their assets should be dissolved and held in escrow for the resolution of civil and criminal suits both by the US government and the Iraqi government.

Given her Enron history, Cantwell would be a natural on leading an investigation and booting out the corporate death-eaters.

BTW, I see from Halliburton Watch that, on 7/12,

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced plans to terminate Halliburton's largest and most scandalous contract in Iraq and Afghanistan later this year, the Washington Post reported today.

by noemie maxwell on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:41:42 AM PST

* 4 5.00 4 *

Switzer and DWE

whether verbose or succinct, are uniters, not dividers--the real thing. So is Noemie...gifted at calm, reasoned, inclusive rhetoric, while holding partisan positions as well. I don't know HOW they do it, but they do.

This post is Switzer's most heroic reaching-out- of-the-Washblog-olive branch yet. I appreciate that. This most recent analysis of Cantwell is as objective as I've seen.

As you might guess, this part is my sticking point:
"...to suggest that she's anything less than honest is downright foolish. She's never shied away from her own beliefs - on Iraq, she's been upfront with us: she believed as far back as the '90's that Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed. Hence, she will never "apologize" or believe she was wrong to vote for the IWR, because she wasn't voting for Bush's trumped-up nonsense - she had her own reasons that still ring true to her..."

To her. True, true. It explains why she's an ideologue on this subject--which is dangerous for the same reasons you say dogmatic anti-war ideology is: it doesn't take reality into account. Running your car over a dog's leg, and then calling it a tail doesn't make it one.

In her ideology, a Iraq regime-change mission should've worked out, because people like her had decent motives. But people like her aren't in charge--ruthless, greedy, power-hungry war-mongering liars are. Maybe she'll admit that little glitch in 20 years or so.
/rant

Where was I? Oh yeah...good post.

by dinazina on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:47:23 AM PST

* 5 5.00 5 *

You are so gracious, by DWE, 07/18/2006 12:38:04 PM PST (5.00 / 2)
As I said... by switzerblog, 07/18/2006 05:03:27 PM PST (5.00 / 2)

A rhetorical question

If some of us can't agree about whether it's imperative to keep this Senate seat in Democratic hands, which we do know something about, how are we to agree on redeployment of our military forces from Iraq, which we know one hell of a lot less about?

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

by ivan on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:28:39 AM PST

* 9 5.00 5 *

Distraction to core issue; Sen Cantwell empowered by Lietta Ruger, 07/19/2006 10:27:55 AM PST (5.00 / 1)

We all have high standards by ivan, 07/19/2006 11:59:58 AM PST (5.00 / 1)

But Sen. Cantwell does and can meet high standards by Lietta Ruger, 07/19/2006 12:16:10 PM PST (5.00 / 1)
Standards by zappini, 07/19/2006 02:42:24 PM PST (none / 0)

More Distractions by zappini, 07/19/2006 12:21:34 PM PST (none / 0)

Correct zappini, we are also talking to Sen Murray by Lietta Ruger, 07/19/2006 12:59:53 PM PST (none / 0)

A For Instance by zappini, 07/19/2006 06:27:15 AM PST (none / 0)

My bottom line

In the general election, I will support the party which had 59% of its legislators vote against the Iraq war, despite the 41% who voted for it. What else do we have?

Add to the list of things to agree on--cut funding for that abomination of a palatial embassy, now! It is nothing but a thumb stuck in the eyes of every Iraqi who still doesn't have power and water.

by eridani on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 02:13:10 PM PST

* 12 5.00 1 *

Except by The Left Shue, 07/18/2006 02:34:37 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

Oddly Enough....

....the Right is having this same discussion over at Sound Politics. Interesting stuff.

I'm with Obama

by willisreed on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:22:05 PM PST

* 22 5.00 1 *

Some of us are that far apart

And we're not unamimous (not in any meaningful sense, anyway).

If "far" means anything, the "now means now" faction is FAR from the "win and get out" faction.

The "US is the source of Middle East strife" faction is FAR from the "can a little extra credit work raise that F-plus to a D-minus?" faction.

And so on.

And evolving views don't evolve in just one direction.

I'd take issue with some of your particulars, but this is a good effort on several fronts.

Maybe switzer's not such an idiot after all.

by RonK Seattle on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:58:58 AM PST

* 6 4.50 2 *

You use a lot of their language

to describe people who don't like CantRunACampaign CantAttractTheMiddle.

I agree with you that she believes in what she is doing, but, IMHO she thinks the middle exists in a place where it does NOT exist.

Her middle is defined by the getting-their-asses-kicked-cuz-they-are-politically-incompetent Dems who've been getting their asses kicked since before '88

The torch was passed to a new generation in the '88 to Clinton era, AND

they did NOT learn how to campaign, how to govern, how to win - in any combination or order.

Wanna save the world ? work for a dogcather who has something new ideas going for her - the people who show up to vote for her will

maybe, hopefully, possibly,

remember SenatorCantDoShit and vote for her instead of Richy Rich's lackey.

rmm.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 05:06:04 PM PST

* 15 1.00 2 *

Switzer, appreciate the gesture But ..

you knew that was coming, didn't ya? I do appreciate the gesture, really. I view it as reaching out and an effort at inclusion rather than exclusion of the various viewpoints that abound here at Washblog.

But ... and I think you already know the but to your gesture is not intended to dismiss your efforts or the extended olive branch. But ... to quote from words which I take license to take out of context of your meaning and sentence in your last paragraph

'we have to stop this useless fighting'

Yep, we surely do - isn't that the message I've been trying to get across - put across?

Help me in problem solving that one, will ya?

'Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? ~ Abraham Lincoln

by Lietta Ruger on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 01:29:39 PM PST

* 23 none 0 *

Oops, that may have come across flippant. by Lietta Ruger, 07/19/2006 01:36:39 PM PST (none / 0)

We're not that far apart | 25 comments (25 topical)

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login


Make a new account
Username:
Password:

HELP

Recommended Diaries

Free Speech for People moves forward in Washington State
At my urging, Senator Jacobsen has introduced a Senate Joint Memorial asking for Congress to submit to the states a Federal
By chadlupkes (1 comment)
State Budget Craters By $2 Billion More. The Good News Is....
... Now Progressives are going to have to stop talking about tax hikes and start talking about the value of government.
By dlaw (19 comments)
Why Aren't We Fighting for a State Income Tax?
I am getting really tired here: I've been asked to sign petitions and send emails by almost any advocacy group that
By ktkeller (24 comments)
We Want to Take You and We Will Nyah Nyah
Last week I'm watching a podcast of Monday's House Local Government and Housing Committee because I'm interested in the Executive Session
By ktkeller (7 comments)
Online Voting Rights for Overseas Military Personal
Having been deployed during an election I have some very passionate views on this issue. I have seen my friends simple
By dorsolplants (20 comments)
A Modest Proposal: How to Cut Education Funding
As cited in a recent Seattle P-I article, Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, chairwoman of the state Senate education committee, warned that budget
By OrneryDemocrat (7 comments)