Iraq Policy In 2007

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 02:41:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yglesias:

In both political and policy terms, I think all of the candidates should consider that in the real world they need not Iraq policies that will make sense in the fall of 2007, but Iraq policies that will make sense in January 2009 . . .

Does Yglesias believe this holds true for the Congress as well? 4 Senators and 1 Congressman are running for President. Is the leadership they demonstrate in the Congress NOW irrelevant to Yglesias? Atrios writes:

In more general terms, the stark inability of Democrats to think 6 or 12 months ahead on the issue has been revolting. Waiting for the ponies, or president Bush to come around, or the ISG to save the universe, or sensible Republicans to do the right thing has always been their strategy. But should have always assumed the obvious, that 6 or 12 months from now there would be no ponies, no sensible Republicans, and no wise old men of Washington to save the day. September is here, nothing will change... and these people appear to actually be surprised by this. As for the presidential candidates, 16 months from now the US death toll will likely stand at just about 5000. Billions more will have been wasted. Still there will be no sensible Republicans, no ponies, no wise old men of Washington, etc.

What Duncan writes points to the need for pressure NOW, indeed it pointed to the need for all out pressure last March from the progressive base.

Focus on ponies and plans in January 2009 is utterly misplaced. The fight is now and constant -in the Democratic Congress - for those who want to change Iraq policy.

< Weekend Open Thread and Diary Rescue | Bush to Appoint New Attorney General Next Week >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Iraq Policy In 2007 | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Agreed Edger (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Che's Lounge on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:33:14 PM EST

I'll give her credit when she says it in her next capmpaign speech. Some email to Kos is like whispering it at a rock concert. She still skirts the funding tactic. But the moderate Dems are so afraid of losing again that they will support her have-it-both-ways position. She will continue the occupation.

Since hardly anyone (but me) (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:37:09 PM EST

actually reads a newspaper anymore, isn't e-mailing a fellow with 200,000 or so "users" pretty much like writing a letter to the editor or an op ed, such as Richardson did in WSJ? I'd rather she just posted on DK and took the heat directly though, Maybe she will next.


I think so, Che. (none / 0) (#38)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:44:47 PM EST

I think she really has no choice. She believes in the "empire" and believes that the empire has to control the energy resources of the world, so that the empires economy can continue to dominate the world's economy.

This is where it is getting most dangerous, I'm afraid. The fear of the consequences of a crumbling empire is the new fear they are selling. The voters can now buy fear from the Republicans, or buy fear from Democrats.

I think they have it backwards.

I think if the "empire" falls it will be because insanely misguided attempts at preserving it like invading and occupying Iraq produce the opposite result.

I'm pretty sure you've seen this before Che, but maybe others haven't:
You Must Be Mad, Or You Wouldn't Have Come Here

One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years
The US is insolvent.
That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare.

If this is what Hillary Clinton really (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:55:36 PM EST

thinks, she's not paying any attention to what her husband sd. on NPR yesterday.

BTW: two of the most liberal people I know (in person), both of whom strongly advocate the wrong-headedness of the Iraq war and the need to end it, stated Thursday the U.S. has to fix what it broke. I was quite surprised. I don't agree, as I don't think the U.S. can fix it, even by everyone converting to Islam!


I nterpreted what he said differently (none / 0) (#42)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:57:22 PM EST

I think Bill said exactly the same thing she's saying.


He sd. U.S. military cannot sustain its (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:59:37 PM EST

present levels in Iraq and unless U.S. forces are increased exponentialy for a very long time, the surge ain't working.


: ::present levels:: (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 06:01:09 PM EST

I think not also. (none / 0) (#44)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 06:00:38 PM EST

I think the only way the US can even help to see it fixed is to get out so that Iraqis can fix it. We might not much like the result when they're done, but when you burn someones house down and kill half their family you can't really expect them to be too well disposed towards you.


Preservation of the Empire (none / 0) (#47)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 06:17:24 PM EST

Background: Oil
If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades. Americans became interested in the oil riches of the region in the 1920s, and two U.S. companies, Standard Oil of California and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."
Subsequently, as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as the chief Western power in the region.(5) In Iran and Saudi Arabia, American gains were British (and French) losses.(6) Originally, the dominant American oil interests had had limited access to Iraqi oil only (through the Iraq Petroleum Company, under the 1928 Red Line Agreement). In 1946, however, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil Oil Corp., seeing the irresistible opportunities in Saudi Arabia, had the agreement voided.(7) When the awakening countries of the Middle East asserted control over their oil resources, the United States found ways to protect its access to the oil. Nearly everything the United States has done in the Middle East can be understood as contributing to the protection of its long-term access to Middle Eastern oil and, through that control, Washington's claim to world leadership. The U.S. build-up of Israel and Iran as powerful gendarmeries beholden to the United States, and U.S. aid given to "moderate," pro-Western Arab regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, were intended to keep the region in friendly hands. That was always the meaning of the term "regional stability."

And now Iran, being no longer friendly for well known reasons, has become the next target of this century long attempt at world domination.

It is not a problem that is going away quickly or easily, and even in pushing to end the occupation of Iraq - as large as that problem is - all we are doing is addressing a symptom of more systemic entrenched problems.


Nie to see you here btw, Che. (none / 0) (#40)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:54:17 PM EST

I agree ... (none / 0) (#1)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:04:26 PM EST

... but I don't understand the reference to ponies. Is that just some kind of whimsical reference to childish magical thinking?

ponies = fantasies (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:16:37 PM EST

: Or horse race. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:20:05 PM EST

Better ask Atrios. (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:12:29 PM EST

Matt Yglesias is (none / 0) (#3)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:15:00 PM EST

still grasping for some way, any way, that the unworkable can be made to work? Does he still not get that the Iraq invasion was insane and idiotic from the beginning?

OT: is The Atlantic the (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:21:15 PM EST

former Atlantic Monthly? Also, who the heck is Duncan?


Yes. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:18:23 PM EST

Duncan is Atrios (none / 0) (#7)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:27:11 PM EST

I'm not sure about the Atlantic.


Atrios' bio (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:31:49 PM EST

Duncan Bowen Black


: That explains the ponies too. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:44:37 PM EST

Love this sentence:

The style of Eschaton is snarkier and more personal than liberal blogs enjoying the same level of traffic such as Daily Kos,[citation needed]
[Italics added.]

It seems he grasps that ... (none / 0) (#8)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:30:59 PM EST

... at least so it seems to me if you look at the rest of the quote:

"In both political and policy terms, I think all of the candidates should consider that in the real world they need not Iraq policies that will make sense in the fall of 2007, but Iraq policies that will make sense in January 2009 after over a year of additional political stalemate in Iraq, continued bloodshed and refugee flows, and continued deterioration of the readiness of the American military.


Not the way you try to present him as getting (none / 0) (#10)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:37:09 PM EST

Yglesias has been behind the invasion and occupation all along. The only thing he gets is something is f***ing up his beautiful dream...


Sorry ... (none / 0) (#11)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:40:21 PM EST

... you know better than me. So does he think that the Iraq invasion was a good idea but poorly executed ... or something like that?


Probably.... (none / 0) (#13)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:45:20 PM EST

Standard neocon (non)thinking


I suppose I'm still a little confused (none / 0) (#26)
by robrecht on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:00:32 PM EST

Wikipedia: "Yglesias supported the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. However, his position on the war has changed, and he now advocates an immediate troop pullout. [1] He remains a qualified supporter of the war on terror and democracy promotion in the Middle East."

I suppose their reference could be rather ambiguous and I've had a hard time finding anything completely unambiguous, though I'm pretty sure the last paragraph here is completely sarcastic:

"The United States is now well into the fifth year of a war in Iraq that has, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, managed to get more Americans killed than 9/11 while alienating global opinion, undermining our strategic posture around the world, arguably speeding nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran and detracting from American efforts against Al Qaeda. The nation's elites, ever vigilant, have located the source of the problem: Public outrage over the sorry situation.
...
Citizens who have come to fear letting the powers-that-be sort things out from above have some sound basis for their anxiety -- the bipartisan elite turns out to have a fairly awful track record on Iraq. Indeed, one might begin to suspect that the real agenda here is to try to stifle political debate lest it risk displacing current elites from their cozy positions in favor of some new experts who've shown better judgment.

That, though, would be shrill and partisan. Better to not complain and just assume it'll all turn out for the best"


: Democracy promotion in the Middle East? (none / 0) (#46)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 06:07:26 PM EST

Operation Comeback

TO: My Fellow Neoconservatives
FROM: Joshua Muravchik
RE: How to Save the Neocons
...
The essential tenets of neoconservatism--belief that world peace is indivisible, that ideas are powerful, that freedom and democracy are universally valid, and that evil exists and must be confronted--are as valid today as when we first began. That is why we must continue to fight. But we need to sharpen our game. Here are some thoughts on how to do it:
...
Prepare to Bomb Iran.

BTD, will you be deconstructing (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:47:04 PM EST

Hillary Clinton's recent e-mail to Kos, or is that Jeralyn's exclusive territory?

Another effort by Senator Clinton ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:22:41 PM EST

...to have it both ways. If it were more than mere words, and had been spoken two years ago, we could huzzah. I did not see the breakthrough that Kos did.

But Georgia10 had a good response to it today at "Everything In My Power".


Georgia10 was great today (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:26:29 PM EST

Well, Hillary Clinton votes the (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:31:43 PM EST

way she e-mails, but I fault her for not speaking up and leading before the votes.


Well (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:42:15 PM EST

It's like this .

She is saying what she thinks will co-opt and soothe people opposed to the occupation, but she is for Rome first.


Disagree. (none / 0) (#23)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:47:18 PM EST

Your link doesn't support your second sentence. Of course she's got her finger in the wind, but she is apparently reacting to the prevailing winds, just the same. That's good.


You're right. It doesn't... except directly. (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:58:59 PM EST

I was alluding to this paragraph:

Congress Members Nancy Pelosi and David Obey turned against their own bill. They made sure it came up for a vote and passed, but voted against it. They were quite distressed. Obey remarked on the floor: "I hate this agreement. I'm going to vote against the major portion of this agreement even though I negotiated it." Too confused to cover this nonsense, the media finally remembered that this new bill said nothing about ending the war.

Hillary is no different, IMO:

Hillary Clinton declares forthrightly: "It is time to begin ending this war.... Start bringing home America's troops.... within 90 days." Troops home: It sounds clear enough. But she is always careful to avoid the crucial word all. A few months ago she told an interviewer: "We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq.... What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region." A senior Pentagon officer who has briefed Clinton told NPR commentator Ted Koppel that Clinton expects U.S. troops to be in Iraq when she ends her second term in 2017.

Why all these troops? We have "very real strategic national interests in this region," Clinton explains.

That was her speaking on July 10, 2007.


errr.. ::except indirectly:: (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 04:59:45 PM EST

I'll play BTD here. Stick to the content of (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:07:36 PM EST

her e-mail to Kos. Oh, and I say you must also acknowledge the way she has cast her votes on Reed/Feingold and "capitulation" bills.


Ok. The content... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:12:50 PM EST

Hillary: "begin to withdraw"? Hillary: "redeployment of combat troops"?

And the rest? And the private army of mercenaries? And the bases? Another supplemental to pay for it all? Work to develop a strategy? Enable troops to start coming home?

All I hear so far is someone worried about votes next year trying to quiet and co-opt opposition to the occupation.


More Hillary (from above): (none / 0) (#29)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:14:50 PM EST

"We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq.... What we can do is to almost take a line sort of north of, between Baghdad and Kirkuk, and basically put our troops into that region."

I gather you don't think the e-mail (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:19:30 PM EST

changes a thing.


Yes. :-) (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:22:27 PM EST

It is her attempt, as MB put it above, to have it both ways.

She gets your vote thinking she said she's going to end the occupation, and she gets to continue the occupation.


THere is nothing she can say (or e-mail) (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:24:35 PM EST

that would sway either of you from opinion. Is it because she voted for the AMUF and failed to apologize?


Well there is nothing I canb say to sway you (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:26:20 PM EST

if you've decided that one email from her is a repudiation of everything she has said before it.


That is what she hopes will be (none / 0) (#34)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:28:15 PM EST

the effect of her email.


Don't put words in my mouth or thoughts (none / 0) (#35)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:32:59 PM EST

in my head. Remember, I was one of the two people or so who voted for George McGovern. I'd really like Hillary Clinton to develop spine on getting out of Iraq now and I see this as a baby step in the right direction, along with her recent votes. A woman's prerogative to change her mind, you know, and I am optimistic she is doing that.

FYI: I also advocated for Geraldine Ferraro until the crooked-husband stuff was revealed.


: No - I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (none / 0) (#39)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 05:46:20 PM EST

That was my evaluation of the direction of what you were saying.

I am unaware of the e-mail (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:48:42 PM EST

you are referencing.


: Here: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:52:46 PM EST

Hillary wants withdrawal bill with teeth, DK, by Kos
Jeralyn posted on this yesterday briefly.

: Jeralyn's post yesterday (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 03:56:25 PM EST

is here...

HRC (none / 0) (#48)
by diogenes on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 06:58:16 PM EST

The first thing Hillary can do is introduce a complete defunding bill effective January 21, 2009--assuming, of course, that she really wants her hands to be tied in such a way. You dems can always try to pull back the date once you win the January 2009 date first.
Hey-we still have troops in Bosnia, where Bill sent them solely for "humanitarian" purposes, so since when will HRC rush them or Iraq as long as Kurds and other minorities are there?

Time for an (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Edger on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 07:22:58 PM EST

upgrade, diog...


: lol (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by squeaky on Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:18:12 PM EST