Lieberman

[Exsubmariner]

Stern,
Let me explain, I don't actually think it's about oil. Sometimes I say things on these boards that I don't really believe and are solely intended to get people rowled up. In this case, I was waiting for Andy to jump on that. Unfortunately, he's wise to it I think.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that Lieberman is saying ungrounded critism at the EXPENSE of the commander-in-chief is detremental to the country during war time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he referring to "ungrounded" criticism or criticism in general? And who decides whether a criticism is ungrounded or not? Alot of very smart and well-meaning people think that in terms of both fiscal and foreign policy, the Bush administration has been a complete disaster and that we are headed for some very bad times on both accounts. Should those people keep quiet?

I am also waiting with baited breath for somebody to answer my other question in the thread, about what hard evidence exists that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no hard evidence that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq, and obviously the idea that it will is comical. Would the insurgency give up if they read in the papers that Democrats and Republicans were united in this war? No, of course not.

There is a reasonable argument that once America pulls out of Iraq, the insurgency will have the opportunity to capitalize on the lack of a military presence and become empowered. I think this is very plausible, and one reason that continued military presence in Iraq is necessary.

Basically, it was a poor strategic decision to invade Iraq (in my opinion). One consequence of the poor strategic decision is that our military is tied to Iraq for the foreseeable future in order to prevent an insurgency from taking hold there. The insurgency, of course, only became a strongly organized and powerful entity after we invaded Iraq (though obviously many of the leaders of the insurgency were attempting to form networks designed to promote and spread their radical agenda prior to the war -- they were just much less successful before our strategic decision gave them a rallying point around which to exponentially increase their strength and numbers).

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he'll be commander-in-chief for three more years," the senator said. "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril."

Isn't it the president himself who has undermined his own credibility? How does criticism of his statements and policies, unless there's some substance or truth to the criticism, undermine his credibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lieberman is a douchebag, but Dick Cheney would have been worse. Wait a second...

natedogg

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that even if our involvement is wrong as you believe it to be

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, it IS wrong. Bush and his crew lied the nation into a war of aggression. That is a war crime and a crime against the nation. There is NO legitimate defense of this criminal conduct, whatever your partisan affection for the man may be.

[ QUOTE ]
then such criticism lets the enemy know that we are divided

[/ QUOTE ]

America IS divided.

Get used to it.

You did it by lying the nation into a war of aggression.

[ QUOTE ]
and that possibly by continuing a resistance they otherwise would not

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me you're not really this stupid.

Seriously.

Iraqis are not attacking an occupying army because Bush is domestically unpopular ten thousand miles away. They are attacking an occupying army because it is an occupying army.

How geniunely stupid do you have to be not to recognize this?

[ QUOTE ]
that we will lack the political unity to see it through.

[/ QUOTE ]

"see it through". What a lovely sounding political catch-phrase. And what does it mean? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Because you don't have an exit strategy. You NEVER had an exit strategy. You people just like repeating Hallmark Card phrases like "stay the course" and "see it through", while ten thousand miles away American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are being maimed and burned and killed to supply you with your Hallmark Moments.

But the truth is that you really don't care, just as long as you get to accuse your political opponents of "disloyalty", in furtherance of your own partisan politics. It's shameful behavior, and you hacks should be called on it every day, every hour, every minute.

[ QUOTE ]
This thus endangers more soldiers' lives who otherwise would get to come home sooner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a way to get them "home sooner" : bring them home NOW.

Or, in the alternative, let's send America's Young Republicans to take their place. I'm sure Rush would be happy to help with the recruitment effort. And if you don't want to sign up and see the bloodshed firsthand, well, he can just tell his millions of listeners that you're a traitor. And naturally they'll believe him. Because real patriots don't ask questions. Right? Right.


q/q

[lehighguy]

I think what he means is that disagreement should be done in private, and that a consensus view should be presented to the public. Say, the way a Japanese company is run.

This requires that both sides listen to eachother. Since Bush doesn't listen, Dems can't have a voice, so they go to the public.

Of course, one could say Dems don't want to have a voice, but rather want to bring it to the public for political gain. After all, what is thier alternative plan for Iraq, if they have one they need to bring it to the table and let people see it. What is their alternative plan for Iran and terrorism in general? They don't really have one (plans are harder then criticism). They want to be for and against the war at the same time so they can take credit and assing blame either way.

What Dems really want is for things to continue going badly, for Bush to get the blame, and for Dems to use it to win elections at home. Both a withdrawal or success are bad for them. A dream scenerio is that we are still in Iraq during the next presidential election and that things are going wrong. No one cares about Iraq, even Bush. All American foriegn policy is executed in order to gain political advantage at home for the personal benefit of the candidates.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no hard evidence that domestic debate is actually hurting us in Iraq, and obviously the idea that it will is comical. Would the insurgency give up if they read in the papers that Democrats and Republicans were united in this war? No, of course not.

There is a reasonable argument that once America pulls out of Iraq, the insurgency will have the opportunity to capitalize on the lack of a military presence and become empowered. I think this is very plausible, and one reason that continued military presence in Iraq is necessary.

Basically, it was a poor strategic decision to invade Iraq (in my opinion). One consequence of the poor strategic decision is that our military is tied to Iraq for the foreseeable future in order to prevent an insurgency from taking hold there. The insurgency, of course, only became a strongly organized and powerful entity after we invaded Iraq (though obviously many of the leaders of the insurgency were attempting to form networks designed to promote and spread their radical agenda prior to the war -- they were just much less successful before our strategic decision gave them a rallying point around which to exponentially increase their strength and numbers).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you just said. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what he means is that disagreement should be done in private, and that a consensus view should be presented to the public. Say, the way a Japanese company is run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what Lieberman meant. But that is a very illiberal perspective! What happened to the marketplace of ideas? Again, I don't see what evidence there is that presenting this unified front helps us at all. Rather, stressing the need for public unanimity concerning such an important issue just seems to undermine the principles of our democracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, one could say Dems don't want to have a voice, but rather want to bring it to the public for political gain. After all, what is thier alternative plan for Iraq, if they have one they need to bring it to the table and let people see it. What is their alternative plan for Iran and terrorism in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I'm not sure they have a plan right now. But of course, it is not uncommon for the opposition party to hold its cards close to the vest in these situations and only lay out a plan once election time rolls around. That's how it nearly always works. They don't want to give the Republicans over a year to counter their plan and formulate a response for next fall's elections. I don't know if I would go as far to claim that they want Iraq to go badly at this point. But I agree with you that the most important priority for most politicians is ultimately their own reelection, and so they may have mixed motivations.

[lehighguy]

The theory behind the unified front is that the insurgents can't defeat us militarily, so the only way they can defeat us is by making us want to leave.

When they see people on CNN saying we can't win and we should leave, this further enboldens them to committ more violence since they can see thier strategy is working.

If there was no public disagreement, if the insurgents knew there was no possibility of forcing enemy withdrawal through violence, then they would lose support.

That is the thinking behind it. The basic premise is that we will win the war as long as we don't give up. If you believe in this premise then it makes sense to want to stifle the opposing sides dialogue as it, not the insurgents, is the only thing that can make America lose the war. If you think victory is impossible then you have to speak up because it is the insurgents, not American politics, that will make us lose the war.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
The basic premise is that we will win the war as long as we don't give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly enough, to a large extent, this was the rationale that the British government used when trying to defeat the American "insurgency" of 1776. And they were essentially right -- the British ALWAYS could have supplied enough troops to keep the Americans from being victorious, at least for the foreseeable future.

However, the British public tired of the cost of trying to defeat the Americans, both in lives lost but primarily in taxes raised. The British government was in massive debt already at this point (due to a previous war with France, which was known as the French and Indian War over here), and eventually the politicians were swayed by the general sentiment (of the voting public -- universal suffrage had not yet caught on) that America just wasn't worth the trouble. (The French being willing to help us probably led to this decision, as that was clearly going to up the cost of lengthening the stalemate between the British military and the American rebels.)

Obviously, there are moral differences between the American insurgency then and the Iraqi insurgency today. (Though it should be pointed out that the British considered many of our tactics in the American revolution to be barbaric by the standard of the times, e.g. the Boston Tea Party.) And there are strategic differences as well. But the general principle still holds true that people everywhere eventually tire of fighting a battle to maintain a stalemate. That is essentially what is going on in Iraq -- our military presence prevents the insurgency from gaining political power, but the insurgency has been a consistent thorn in the side of our goal for increasing stability and prosperity.

Historically, merely "staying the course" has always been a losing strategy -- the costs of our military occupation are much higher than the costs of the insurgency. What is needed are tactics that will strip the insurgency of its support. While the administration has repeatedly suggested that the insurgency is in its last throes, I have not seen any evidence that they have a particularly effective strategy to dramatically move the balance of power and support in the region to the U.S. military. In fact, despite the fact that our intentions are to build infrastructure in the region (whereas the insurgents seek to destroy it), our military is significantly better trained at handling these kind of operations than in the past, and the Iraqi public gave us a fairly long grace period in the beginning, the insurgency has actually grown in strength over the past two years. Why?

(1) We have failed to addres the ethnic divisions in the country effectively. (This is no easy task and it is unlikely to be accomplished anytime in the near future. The main criticism of the administration on this matter is not that they have failed here -- as just about any administration would have -- but they failed to see early on how serious and difficult a task lay before them.)

(2) We have failed to engage the marginal supporters of the insurgency. We have not done a good enough job of getting into communities where the people support the insurgency out of fear of reprisal or misinformation about the American campaign. These are missions that are very high risk and cannot be conducted inside the comfort of the Green Zone. But these are the missions that would actually strike at the heart of the insurgency if they were successful.

(3) Our horrendous standards of interrogation, as well as similar practices by Iraqi authorities, have seriously undermined our message and made too many people suspicious of a return to Saddam's way of rule.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory behind the unified front is that the insurgents can't defeat us militarily, so the only way they can defeat us is by making us want to leave.

When they see people on CNN saying we can't win and we should leave, this further enboldens them to committ more violence since they can see thier strategy is working.

If there was no public disagreement, if the insurgents knew there was no possibility of forcing enemy withdrawal through violence, then they would lose support.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, that is indeed the theory. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that it is actually true.

Therefore, the case for tossing aside one of the foundational principles of liberal democracy - that important issues deserve a public hearing - seems rather weak.