Log in
2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2007/08/30/a-study-in-cowardice/
0
0
  |   23 comments

EDITOR’s NOTE: This post has been pulled up. For newer posts, scroll down.

The Center for America Progress’ (CAP) recent study entitled “How to Redeploy: Implementing a Responsible Drawdown of U.S. Forces from Iraq” (PDF alert) features a quote from Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War:

“No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.”

This is meant to lead us into the center’s belief that America should abandon Iraq to its own destruction in a year’s time. That’s the thesis of How to Redeploy, a 28 page plan to bolt as fast as possible from the mess the U.S. has made in Iraq.

Of course, it’s not a case of protracted warfare that’s gotten us into trouble in Iraq. If anything I would assert that it’s the opposite: We ended the war in Iraq too soon, before we secured the borders and eliminated the enemy, and before we even came close to delivering on our promise of a stable democracy for the people of Iraq.

By bungling the initial invasion, the White House bogged America’s troops down in an untenable police action, not an unwinnable war, a war that in a sense was never really fought. Only in recent months have the gloves come part way off and, as Michael discussed earlier, some progress seems to be happening in Iraq as a result.

Some Democrats in Congress have changed with positions publicly, including including Brian Baird of Washington state who is now paying the price politically for visiting Iraq and coming away with the desire to do what is right:

For more than three hours Monday night, Rep. Brian Baird was verbally flogged by hundreds of his constituents for no longer supporting the quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

More than 500 people packed a high school auditorium in Vancouver while another 175 or so were unable to get inside. And virtually everyone who got a chance to address the Vancouver Democrat were harshly critical – including several who said they had been long-time supporters and friends.

…

While some people left the Vancouver meeting saying they respected Baird’s sincerity, the town hall had to have been a particularly brutal experience for the congressman. At several points, he pleaded with the crowd to let him finish his explanation. One woman told him the blood of the troops was now on his hands, and several said he was violating the wishes of his constituents.

“We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

Some of the angriest comments came from Vietnam veterans. “I was part of another surge in 1968 (in Vietnam), based on another pack of lies,” said Vancouver resident Bob Goss, who served in the Army there. “I really think it’s time to get out.”

As the evening wore on, Baird repeatedly insisted that Iraq would descend into worse chaos if the U.S. withdrew precipitously, with Iran gaining greater influence. “I think the probability is 95 percent if we withdraw prematurely, in our hearts we will live to regret it,” he said.

Baird said industries are starting to reopen and things are starting to get better. “We’re putting people back to work and that is good news,” he said.

“I am truly impressed by Brian’s willingness to stand here and take it gracefully,” said Joy Overstreet, a Vancouver writer, as the meeting passed the two-hour mark. But she said she would consider voting out the congressmen next year if there is a “viable alternative.”

“It could well cost me the next election,” Baird said at the end of the meeting. “That’s alright.”

Good for Baird. It’s refreshing to see a representative who will vote his conscience, consequences at the polls be damned. We need more people like him in leadership positions.

More from a transcript of an interview with Baird here:

I believe frankly that the invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in the history of the country and I still believe that. However, once we had made that commitment and were on the ground I’ve pretty steadfastly opposed a timeline for withdrawal. Recently our party put forward a resolution really aimed at making sure that the preparedness of our soldiers was not sacrificed for this war and I did support that. But I really believe what we need to do now is stop looking at backwards and look at where we are today. The fact is, this country is trying to rebuild from very difficult circumstances. Their police were disbanded, their military was disbanded, the civil government was taken apart, the infrastructure was destroyed, and the borders were left open. To expect any country to rebuild from that in three brief years is I think not realistic. We have a strategic interest in seeing that this mission succeeds, we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people and the region, and I think we are seeing signs of progress and it is worth letting Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus have their time and breathing room to move their project forward.

…

I know painfully well, that if we decide to keep troops on the ground for a longer period of time it will mean more American casualties and more lost US dollars, but I believe the outcome if we pull out precipitously would be far worse. And because of that I think the right course is to keep the presence on the ground probably through to next spring and then begin a gradual withdrawal. And I think it’s also important to note that what we say and do here have real consequences on the ground in Iraq in terms of how we impact their efforts to resolve things politically and we need to be very careful with what we do.

This is in stark contrast to the vision that CAP puts forth in How to Redeploy:

A phased military redeployment from Iraq over the next 10 to 12 months would begin extracting U.S. troops from Iraq’s internal conflicts immediately and would be completed by the end of 2008.

…

Nor would we leave the region entirely. To maintain an offensive and deterrent capability in the region, U.S. troops would temporarily station 8,000 to 10,000 troops (two brigades plus support and command elements) in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq for one year to prevent the outbreak of Turkish-Kurd violence and protect that region of the country from Iraq’s multiple civil conflicts. Marine Corps units would be tasked to provide security for personnel at the U.S. embassy. Another ground brigade and tactical air wing would be based in Kuwait.

…

The time for half-measures and experiments is over; it is now time for a logistically sound strategic redeployment.

…

A 10 to 12 month withdrawal will ensure that no critical supplies—arms and ammunition, sensitive equipment, such as computers, communications gear, or armored vehicles—will be left behind while non-essential equipment will remain or be destroyed. It is simply not cost effective, in terms of money and, most importantly, our troops’ lives, to delay withdrawal for the sake of totally dismantling our PXs, gymnasiums, housing trailers, headquarters buildings, maintenance
facilities, fast food restaurants, and other non-essential facilities and associated equipment. Ours is not a “no FOB left behind” policy.

…

In the final analysis, redeployment from Iraq is crucial to a broader reset of the United States’ position in the Middle East and the world. For this reason, we need to begin planning now for the deliberate drawdown of our military forces in Iraq.

Yes, we should plan for an eventual exit from Iraq. But as Rep. Baird came to realize, now is not the time. Nor will there ever be a time by which such a departure should be run by mandated timetables known to our enemies. The time to leave is when when and if the situation in Iraq becomes demonstrably untenable for U.S. troops. This has not yet taken place.

A MvdG post from earlier this week generated heated arguments against the modest offensive strategy being conducted in Iraq including this gem:

Yes, supporting the surge makes you responsible for the troops that will die. It makes you responsible for the loss in function of the Army.

An honest war supporter says, “Yes, I am willing to sacrifice young Americans to further our interests in the Middle East. It is important the the occupation continue, and hundreds of Americans potentially be killed, on the admittedly slim chance that Maliki is able to turn everything around in Iraq.”

That’s exactly right, except for the bit about Maliki. Our interests in the Middle East and the world require our troops continued presence in Iraq. Maliki or his replacement needs our assistance and we are obligated by the Iraqi blood that we’ve shed to provide it.

Unfortunately this does mean that some Americans, mostly young men, will die policing that country. I don’t like that this will happen. But I accept my portion of the responsibility, as required by the commentor.

A Diversion in Statistics

Let’s assume that 1000 troops will be killed in the next 12 months in Iraq, a number that is not far from historical averages.

Now, consider this somewhat dated report (PDF alert) from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. In it we see that in 2001 42,000 Americans were killed in traffic accidents and that 16-24 year olds accounted for 24% of these fatalities, or roughly 10,000. Of these, the intoxication rate was 18%, meaning approximately 1800 young men and women of an age with the buck soldiers in Iraq were killed by driving drunk and drunk drivers.

It’s saddening when any young person with a life full of potential is killed too soon. It truly is.

But it seems to be a bit of a stretch to say that “Bush’s War” in Iraq is killing our up and coming generation out of proportion to the value their service renders when 10 times as many young people are killed annually in automobile accidents alone and almost twice as many essentially kill themselves by driving drunk.

Back on Track

CAP’s report is undoubtedly meticulously researched. It may also prove to be right, eventually. And its authors do raise one important point that is very rarely discussed in anti-war circles. That is, what will happen to the tens of thousands of Iraqis who worked with the U.S. troops during our efforts there?

CAP says this:

As the United States withdraws from Iraq, it must find a way to ensure that Iraqis who have worked with the United States have a way out of Iraq. Currently, there are about 120,000 Iraqis working as contractors for the United States, including large numbers of Iraqis who have worked for American diplomatic and military forces as translators or in other capacities. The United States has a responsibility to begin planning to move those Iraqis and their families who have risked their lives to help us in Iraq while we plan our redeployment. The best way to serve our moral obligation to these Iraqis is to increase the number allowed into the United States as refugees from the current paltry total of 8,000 to 100,000, as laid out in our earlier report, Strategic Reset.

Officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security are sure to say that the mere 8,000 refugees are all that can be physically accommodated in the system. In the first six months of 2007, just 200 Iraqi refugees were admitted due to the Department of Homeland Security’s inability to screen these refugees fast enough. We must do better.

Indeed. One wonders how many Iraqis working with the U.S. have been killed already and imagines that it’s far more than 200, including Anwar Abbas Lafta, the CBS translater abducted and killed last week.

These paragraphs prove that CAP recognizes our obligation to help Iraqis; they simply get the definition of help wrong. Retreating in a cloud of dust will help no one in Iraq or, I should say, no one that deserves help. For there are those who would benefit from America’s absence – those who terrorize Iraq’s streets and people even now.

America’s duty extends, as Brian Baird knows, to all Iraqis of good heart. We destroyed their country – quite literally destroyed it – and we have to do something about that. Packing up in the dead of night or over 12 months and leaving them with the empty shells of our troops canteens won’t rebuild Iraq. Only a determined effort from Americans and Iraqis both can do that.

In my opinion, Baird is right about something else, that invading Iraq was a huge foreign policy mistake. I don’t think that’s even something that can be debated. It’s also utterly irrelevant.

Cross-posted at Black Shards.

  1. Pingback | Link #6716 ›
    Black Shards, In Your Eyes, Blinding » A Study in Cowardice [...] Cross-posted at The Van Der Galiën Gazette. [...]
  2. Posted by Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6744 ›
    Tom
    We ended the war in Iraq too soon, before we secured the borders and eliminated the enemy, and before we even came close to delivering on our promise of a stable democracy for the people of Iraq.
    It would be nice if you could describe how we could do that with the forces we have. I suspect that is was never possible, that what we have isn't a bungled war, but an unwinnable one. It would also have been nice if you discussion of statistics included the number of Iraqis likely to die as a result of the US presence during the next 12 months.
    Only a determined effort from Americans and Iraqis both can do that.
    I'd emphasize that the primary responsibility lies with the Iraqis, not with the Americans. If the Iraqis won't put in the necessary effort to stabilize their country, then nothing we do can matter. That America doesn't really control the future of Iraq is something that I don't think most people care to consider...
  3. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6742 ›
    C Stanley Hear, hear, marc. Tom, as to whether or not we have or had the necessary troops, a good bit of the problem was due to our unilateral action (with few notable exceptions like UK, Aust. and of course the Netherlands). Going in with lean forces worked fine for the invasion/extrication of Saddam but certainly not for the police action/nation building that followed. Even after the bitter divide of the trans Atlantic alliance at the outset of the war, we probably could have reunited if we hadn't insisted that the nations that hadn't backed us wouldn't be able to get any oil contracts. Frankly, a lot of this war has been about the oil and the money, but I'm pointing to administrations other than the one in DC when I say that. Fortunately France is now turning a bit and recognizing that a) it's still not too late to get a piece of the pie if they step in now, and b) there are strategic and defense interests of Europe in stabilizing Iraq (mainly to contain Iran) that they must consider. I think we may see major shifts in the international support to stabilize Iraq, and that's one of the main reasons that I'm encouraged by the signs of some success in our current military strategy. If we were still not making any gains, I think everyone would have to give up, but with some security gains and shifting global realizations, we may yet get the cooperation needed to fill in the gaps in our military capabilities. And of course, all of that is also a stopgap until the Iraqis themselves can begin providing their own security. Basically I see some opportunity to begin an upward spiral (small localized security gains and diplomatic pressure on Iraq to strengthen it's central govt, leading to decreased sectarian tension which would in turn augment the security, reconstruction and reconciliation efforts) instead of the downward spiral we've been on.
  4. Posted by Tully
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6733 ›
    Tully It would be nice if you could describe how we could do that with the forces we have. Tom's right to ask that question--I don't believe it was possible for us to field enough troops to secure the borders of Iraq. It would have taken not only more troops than we used, but more than we have. Even with the help of other nations. (Note that we haven't secured our OWN borders!) I’d emphasize that the primary responsibility lies with the Iraqis, not with the Americans. If the Iraqis won’t put in the necessary effort to stabilize their country, then nothing we do can matter. I've been saying that since before the invasion. The prime question becomes, at what point have we done what we CAN do to help them. Note that this does not mean we must just abandon them entirely when that point has been reached. If we have been succesful at all, we will (most likely) have created an ally. One in a strategic location for regional force placement. One that will most likely request some low-level continued presence as a "tripwire" safeguard, as so many other nations have done in the past. We are unlikely to be "out" of Iraq unless we fail utterly and completely. That's a realpolitik observation, one that does not fit well with the current chatter points of contemporary politics. Success means we will have a US military presence in Iraq for at least a generation to come--which will, of course, be portrayed as a sign of failure by those who don't want us to have troops anywhere other than in US barracks (if there). They just won't be on the front lines of Iraq's own internal and regional squabbling.
  5. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6739 ›
    C Stanley Borders only need to be made less porous, not impermeable, though, Tully. In both cases (Iraq and US southern border) there's also what you do inside the border that counts; making the environment less inviting or less hospitable to those who might cross into the country. Is there a possibility of getting enough troops to do that in Iraq? I don't have the answer to that, but it's a different question than whether or not we could secure the border if you mean make it a tight closure.
  6. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6737 ›
    C Stanley On a side note, I really respect Baird not only for taking an unpopular stance on principle, but also for having the courage to meet face to face with his constituents to discuss it. That's what I call leadership; finding the facts on which to base a policy decision, then explaining your decision making process in order to try to lead the constituents rather than holding up finger to the wind of public opinion and following it, or making an unpopular decision and stubbornly ignoring the people. Having charted a course that the constituents disagree with, he's now meeting his responsibility of trying to convince them of the wisdom of that course.
  7. Posted by Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6726 ›
    Tom
    we may yet get the cooperation needed to fill in the gaps in our military capabilities
    I don't know, I've heard those gaps were about 200,000 to 300,000 soldiers in size, and I don't see how we can get that many additional troops, even if everyone else is very generous...
  8. Posted by Heru
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6736 ›
    Heru One could reasonably argue that progress in Iraq is shakey and uneven at best. Violence in Iraq is still high, our troops are dying daily through the actions initiated against them by all of the religious factions in Iraq (sans the Kurds) and the Iraqi Government is a non-functioning entity. I don't think its fair to pick out one town, region or area and applaud or complain about the progress, or lack thereof respectively and ignore the overall picture. This is not the Anbar Province war or the Basra or Bhagdad war. This is the Iraq war. There is no question that our troops have done their job. However, the cost that they have paid is high and the political opportunity that our troops blood and guts have given to the Iraqi people has been wasted and totally disrespected by the Iraqi Government and the prospects of that fact changing is grim at best.
  9. Posted by Lynn
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6732 ›
    Lynn I find the comparison between soldiers dying and the number dying in car accidents in a year simply wrong. Millions of cars are driven every day in this country. There are not millions of U.S troops in Iraq. The percentages count here, not the raw numbers. Like it or not, we start running out of troops to sustain our current presence in Iraq beginning next spring, unless we extend deployments or institute a draft. The end game is in sight. It would be nice to hear supporters of the surge talk about it. Since they don't, all we have is what the "left" says.
  10. Posted by Hope Muntz
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6728 ›
    Hope Muntz To state that ANY war one's nation is engaged in--however weak or great the enemy--is at best defeatism, at worst treason. Civilians and soldiers alike were executed at Stalingrad for uttering such opinions aloud. If this nation were truly 'at war', fully mobilized, under wartime production quotas, a universal draft, and martial law, that would be the fate of half the bloggers online. Some might say good riddance, too, though I'm not one of them. However, we are not 'at war'. This is not even a constitutionally declared war. Or one against an actual entity, much less Russia or China. Or North Korea. It is utterly winnable if we are willing to kill--unlosable, in fact. The advantage we possess in manpower and materiel is overwhelming. What Americans mean when they say the war is 'unwinnable' is really that they cannot support mass killing. Fair enough, but let's define our terms properly. And if any taxpayer, liberal or conservative, truly believes our armed forces truly cannot defeat the scattered Baathist remnants of Iraq who are acting in concert with the hirelings of Iran--much less Russia or China--they should be outraged at the squandering of their tax dollars and the weakness of our military. That's what they should be agitating to do something about--for their own protection and that of their children. But I hear only silence in that regard. Which leads me to the unhappy conclusion that all this hysteria over a relatively minor military police action (comparable to the British involvement in Burma) is really about something else; in fact part of a larger 'culture war' that threatens to tear our own country apart. And for that there's plenty of shame to be shared by both sides.
  11. Posted by Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6722 ›
    Tom I agree that the debate over the Iraq War is part of a larger debate, but I don't think it's accurate to state that the only opposition in Iraq is "scattered Baathist remnants of Iraq who are acting in concert with the hirelings of Iran" Perhaps Jason or someone more familiar with military affairs can shed more light on this than I can...
  12. Posted by mikkel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6725 ›
    mikkel OK if we stay what are our objectives? How are we going to prevent the bloodshed? So far we've gotten violence to decrease by giving weapons to a faction that a) is against the central government and b) professes a desire to kill our troops. This isn't exactly a long term strategy here. Bush is still on "we're going to win and make a free and stable country Iraq" talk. I've been waiting a few years for someone to explain why our goal is to help consolidate a central government that is literally on the payroll of Iran (well even worse, the central figures literally owe their lives to Iran). There have been leaks of top generals talking about the need for "security" i.e. an authoritarian. Presumably from the Sunnis because they are marginally competent. Yeah let's unless the Badr Brigades on our troops as well. Can't someone come up with a detailed plan about how we're going to prevent all the bad stuff from happening (or at least lessening it)? At this point I think having "only" a civil war is really the goal we should shoot for. We should have enough troops (and get other countries to come in) to prevent a regional war. Of course it doesn't really matter anyway because the White House has decided that Iran is the reason why we can't win in Iraq so they will be attacked. Bush said "nuclear holocaust." You can't call something a holocaust and then not do anything about it.
  13. Posted by Jimmie
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6720 ›
    Jimmie mikkel - Please remember that we're talking about a democracy here. So long as the central government can be replaced by the people of that country - and thus far it still can in Iraq - we're not beholden to any one particular Iraqi leader. The absolutely crucial work is being done by our military folks in the towns and cities. As has been repeatedly reported by Michael Yon, Michael Totten, John Burns (of the New York Times), and Alexandra Pavis (of the LA Times) great progress is happening at the local levels, where Iraqis are learning two things. 1) They can actually trust the US military this time, unlike in 1991 (when we let Saddam slaughter them). They're finding that our military is willing to bleed for them, fight to the death for them and their children, and doesn't want to leave until they can stand on their own feet and fight toe to toe against the Iranian and al-Qaeda killers. 2) That they, honest and for true, have the ability and opportunity to govern themselves free from the heavy hand of a strongman or tyrant. The Iraqis learn these two things more firmly every day and with new knwoledge comes genuine progress. I do not doubt that, if we give them the time, we'll see them build and honest and hopeful democracy. It won't be perfect but then again neither is ours and we've been working on it over two centuries.
  14. Posted by mikkel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6718 ›
    mikkel Jimmie the great progress is happening because the locals are becoming even more separated from their central government. We're letting them arm and fight against their immediate threats again, but it has nothing to do with reconciliation. Just yesterday Michael linked to an article with the Sunni insurgent leader saying how his fight against Al Qaeda has nothing to do with embracing either us or the Shi'a. Michael Totten's recent reports say it's safe where Al-Sadr has complete control and where the Sunni insurgents have complete control. It's er...not so safe elsewhere. I don't think the Shiites have much faith in our military. What predominantly Shiite region are we even operating in? Surely not Sadr city or the south, where the British had a really hard time and are now completely gone. They are waiting for us to screw them over again, hence Maliki's recent statements. Also, name one Iraqi leader that has more than 10% support that isn't driven nearly exclusively by sectarian goals. The Kurdish leaders flat out say they only are playing along so when the country falls apart they can declare independence and try to appeal to other countries that they at least tried. The others are interested only in dominating.
  15. Posted by Jason Steck
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6745 ›
    Jason Steck I don't have any special source of information from Iraq, but I think it is implausible that "Baathist elements" would act "in concert" with Iran. Iranian-backed groups and Baathist groups might both oppose continued U.S. involvement, but their opposition would likely be for very different reasons and with a very different alternative end-state in mind. I do wonder if Tom's reference to my interest in "military affairs" is the reason for the bizarre and creepy anonymous email I received today from someone inquiring about my reasons for leaving the military.... :)
  16. Posted by Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6748 ›
    Tom
    I do wonder if Tom’s reference to my interest in “military affairs” is the reason for the bizarre and creepy anonymous email I received today from someone inquiring about my reasons for leaving the military….
    LOL! It wasn't me! And anyway, I wouldn't ask you about why you left the military... ...because you were in the Air Force, which, like the Coast Guard, isn't real military! ;)
  17. Posted by marc
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6749 ›
    marc @Tom and Tully - Hope's comment says it all:
    If this nation were truly ‘at war’, fully mobilized, under wartime production quotas, a universal draft, and martial law, that would be the fate of half the bloggers online. ... However, we are not ‘at war’. This is not even a constitutionally declared war. Or one against an actual entity, much less Russia or China. Or North Korea. It is utterly winnable if we are willing to kill...
    As a nation we have not committed to what we are doing in Iraq. A large number of our troops have sacrificed more than I or any other blogger sitting an an air-conditioned office drinking a cold Coke can imagine. While they number far less than 1% of the U.S. population they and their families have made 100% of the sacrifice thus far. Why aren't we committed? That's complicated, isn't it? It was a bad idea to invade in the first place. The current state of politics demands the Dems not support the President, regardless of the long term impact on the country. Americans don't want to sacrifice, period, but especially not their children's lives against the future threat of Islamic terrorism. Add it up. @Lynn - sorry you find the comparison unpalatable. My real point there was the number of young people who die because of their decision to get wasted and drive. That is, of course, entirely voluntary and has no redeeming social value, unlike service in Iraq.
  18. Posted by Tom
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6751 ›
    Tom I can understand why Americans wouldn't want to sacrifice their children, but
    Americans don’t want to sacrifice, period
    , is excessive. Many Americans would be willing to sacrifice IF they believe the cause is just and the means acceptable. Many already are, as you point out, in Iraq. I will grant you, there are also many Americans who wouldn't care about anyone but themselves--that's true of any society. But I'll bet there are at least as many---including bloggers, including Democrats, including me--who would care, and who would dare to sacrifice much...perhaps even everything.
  19. Posted by Xel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6753 ›
    Xel It doesn't matter to me how many soldiers die. What I care about is dying Iraqis, and a majority of them say that US presence exacerbates their suffering. I see it like this - Iraq is now a blood shower; it doesn't pour very heavily but it does so all over the place and the plug of the bathtub isn't in, meaning that the blood will never reach the level of when those with the hands on the faucet is pleased. When the US pullsout, there will be a bloodbath; the pouring of blood is strong, but soon those with their hands on the faucet (the US can't stay these hands anyway) will deem it enough, and little blood will be shed after that. I am sickened of what I am writing, but you can't blame me for expecting the absolute worst and working cynical equations at this stage. The people who say there is a light at the end of the tunnel has portrayed themselves as lightbringers, and promised the world light at the damn BEGINNING of the tunnel. Also, they blew the roof of the tunnel and flooded it. Oh, and they led the US through the wrong tunnel to begin with...
  20. Posted by Tully
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6756 ›
    Tully If this nation were truly ‘at war’, fully mobilized, under wartime production quotas, a universal draft, and martial law, that would be the fate of half the bloggers online. Some might say good riddance, too, though I’m not one of them. However, we are not ‘at war’. This is not even a constitutionally declared war. Marc, I was gonna leave that alone, as I really don't drop by to flame up on foolish utterances, but since you insist.... Last first. It is indeed a declared war, and saying otherwise betrays both legal ignorance and ideological bias, or intentional prevarication. If you have questions about the constitutionality of an AUMF and how it relates to a declaration of war under the auspices of the Constitution and Congressional war powers, I refer you to that obvious tool of the Bush administration, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE). I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed ... Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction ... between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. As for: As a nation we have not committed to what we are doing in Iraq. A large number of our troops have sacrificed more than I or any other blogger sitting an an air-conditioned office drinking a cold Coke can imagine. Yeah, they have, but you speak for yourself, as you do not speak for me. I don't need to imagine. You have not got one clue about what I (or any anonymous other) has on the line, or what commitments we have made. You don't know me. You or Hope have not one clue what commitments I may have, or how many friends or relatives I have in theater, or what I do to support them. But somehow I doubt you or Hope would cheer if the government expanded the war effort to where "as a nation" such commitments were required, instead of voluntary. Because that's the only way you get such commitments "as a nation." If you have no commitment to the war effort and wonder why, that's a question you have to ask the face in the mirror. Complaining that no one is being forced to have that major commitment is just whining.
  21. Posted by marc
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6757 ›
    marc Tully, there's a difference between a legal declaration of war - about which I'll defer to you - and a full-fledged commitment to it. And the difference is more than semantic, as you seem to know. Speaking for myself, as always, you are correct: I would NOT cheer the prospect of a draft. You can call this whining if you want, but it's no less true that we are not yet committed to winning in Iraq. If we were, Democrats would not be playing political games with the war effort when they know full well that they won't take troops out of Iraq any more than President Bush will. Neither would enlistment numbers be flat or down; instead, beat-up desk jockeys like me would be signing up to serve.
    You or Hope have not one clue what commitments I may have, or how many friends or relatives I have in theater, or what I do to support them.
    Nor do you of me.
  22. Posted by marc
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6759 ›
    marc Tully, your tone implies that you've made a great personal investment in Iraq. I pray it is successful.
  23. Pingback | Link #6762 ›
    A Study in Courage [...] a magnificent blog post by Michael Van Der Galien titled A Study in Cowardice that, ironically, also highlights the remarkable courage of Congressman Brian Baird of Washington [...]
1