How reactionary are our politics?

[UtahDan]

There was an excellent column in the Washington Post yesterday by Robert Kagen entitled Power Shifts in 2008 (A Democrat might not be a different as you think):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052601595.html

The thrust of the piece is that both parties historically get very out of whack in their thinking when they are the opposition party, only to find when they regain power that there really aren't that many options open to then and as a result US foreign policy never changes that much.

He makes a very interesting argument here that the Democrats (as the opposition party) have ascribed most of the problems in the world to GWB and the way he has handled them, when in fact we are in a very different world than the one Bill Clinton led us through. He further states that it may be important for Democrats to govern next so that they will have to confront this reality and as a result we as a nation will be on much more the same page as we face difficulties ahead.

It is a very elegant argument and has a lot of merit IMO.

[MikeWaters]

both parties are guilty. Look at how Republicans behaved with Kosovo? I think it would be hard to reconcile their positions then with what they are saying about Iraq.

Look at Clinton before he was elected, and what he said about China. Then look at what he did while in office.

I certainly hope the next President will impose a swift draw down in Iraq (if it hasn't already happened).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

both parties are guilty. Look at how Republicans behaved with Kosovo? I think it would be hard to reconcile their positions then with what they are saying about Iraq.

Yes. Kagen says exactly this about Republicans post FDR, who after saying he tricked us into war, gave away eastern Europe at Yalta and accused Truman of "cowardly containment", under Eisenhower basically came to broadly support containment.

The interesting question to me, is would a new Democrat president in 2009 see a draw down as an option, and if not, how to explain that to the base? I personally think and hope that by 2009 the Iraqis will have taken a MUCH larger roll in their own security and that the draw down will have already occurred. I hope I am right, but if I am not it would be interesting to see this theory tested with a Dem president.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

both parties are guilty. Look at how Republicans behaved with Kosovo? I think it would be hard to reconcile their positions then with what they are saying about Iraq.

Look at Clinton before he was elected, and what he said about China. Then look at what he did while in office.

I certainly hope the next President will impose a swift draw down in Iraq (if it hasn't already happened).

I am afraid the next president will remove troops from Iraq. I have never been in favor of the war. I always thought it was more about oil interests than anything else. Paul Wolfowitz has said as much on multiple occasions, claiming that while we thought they had weapons of mass destruction, the weapons were the legal justification for the invasion rather than the purpose of the invasion.

Be that as it may, now that we are there, I cannot think failure is an option. If we withdraw, Iraq will fall into civil war quickly, destabilizing the entire region. Such a conflict would only deepen the resentment felt towards the US and Israel, and would destroy everything we have attempted to do to improve our security situation.

We must succeed in Iraq. And to do so, we must learn that winning in Iraq cannot be accomplished solely with military might. The military can keep order, but it can't change minds (at least very quickly). I would suggest the following:

Block the media signals from all hostile media sources (such as Al Jazeera). There is no reason at all Iraqis need to see what Al Jazeera is broadcasting. Most of it is fiction and it is making peace in Iraq more difficult. Replace that content with pro-American news programs or documentaries on the horrific acts of terrorists against Muslims, the brave actions of Americans in protecting Iraqis, updates on attempts to rebuild infrastructure, etc. If you don't think this will work, just ask yourself if Fox News has had an impact on American politics. Like it or not, people generally believe what they see on tv. If they see negative things, they are more prone to have a negative opinion. If they see positive things, they are more prone to be optimistic. We need optimism in Iraq.

I would also work more to involve the clerics. Highlight certain clerics on the media who are helping out the move for peace and stability. That will increase their power amongst the people, and will prompt other clerics to follow suit to gain positive media exposure.

It won't work unless we have the troops there to maintain order though.

[MikeWaters]

what is this order that you talk about?

Police killing civilians in sectarian violence. No real law enforcement. Murders everywhere. Bombs going off everywhere.

I'd hate to see what could happen if this "order" now present went away.

Victory is not possible in Iraq. We can't even define what a theoretical victory would be.

[JohnnyLingo]

You state that with such certainty, Mike. Have you been to Iraq? Have you spoken at length with people who have? From where do you draw this solid conclusion?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what is this order that you talk about?

Police killing civilians in sectarian violence. No real law enforcement. Murders everywhere. Bombs going off everywhere.

I'd hate to see what could happen if this "order" now present went away.

Victory is not possible in Iraq. We can't even define what a theoretical victory would be.

There is no question Iraq is filled with problems. Like you, I am angry with Bush that things ever got to the point of an Iraqi invasion. The cards are strongly stacked against a "victory" in that country.

Nevertheless, given what we have to work with, we now must do the best we can. How do you think Iraqis would perceive Americans if we cut and ran and left them to solve their own problems at this point? If you think they hate us now, just wait until after we have removed all structure in the country and left them in shambles.

I am familiar with the violence going on in Iraq right now. Question: would there be more violence without the US military presence? I think the answer is an obvious YES. I am quite confident they would devolve into a civil war almost immediately.

Things are bad now. I do blame Bush for that. Things CAN improve with substantial work (starting with altering the media images people see there). I have no faith Bush will improve things there, so perhaps I am looking more towards 2008 for progress.

[MikeWaters]

i don't agree with censorship. If we can't win in a freemarket of ideas, do you really think that the Iraqis are stupid enough to swallow our propangda as truth?

You don't win hearts and minds by starting up Pravda.

If we cannot leave Iraq until we are 100% certain there will not be a civil war (actually many argue that there is a civil war going on RIGHT NOW), we will never leave Iraq.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

i don't agree with censorship. If we can't win in a freemarket of ideas, do you really think that the Iraqis are stupid enough to swallow our propangda as truth?

You don't win hearts and minds by starting up Pravda.

If we cannot leave Iraq until we are 100% certain there will not be a civil war (actually many argue that there is a civil war going on RIGHT NOW), we will never leave Iraq.

I think you are assuming Iraq has a free market of ideas operating right now. That is a dangerous assumption.

The US, and indeed many other countries, have frequently supressed a part of the dialogue to win a war. In the Revolutionary War, for example, the Continental Congress ordered the destruction of pro-British publications while simultaneously funding pro-colonist publications. WWII is also replete with examples.

You ask if Iraqis would actually swallow pro-US media. Of course they would. The US is genuinely doing a lot of good over there right now. It would be easy to highlight that. What good are the terrorists doing for Iraq? Very little, but according to recent polls, Iraqis don't perceive the terrorists as being terrible people. They are sick of the US presence, though. How could that be? One reason is that they are accepting what they are getting from the media.

Consider this: How much of what Fox News reports do you consider laughable? And yet how many Americans take it seriously? The media is very powerful. If we want to "win" in Iraq, the media is where we need to start.

[MikeWaters]

take a second.

imagine the uproar if Fox News was banned.

and then compare that with the "ill effects" of Fox News.

You can't compare. there would be much worse fallout by banning Fox News.

Same thing if you did that with Al Jazeera. What are you going to do? Blow up their satellites? It was leaked a while back that Bush actually had plans to destr oyAl Jazeera. I recollect that maybe it was Blair that talked him out of it?

Hoya, I am surprised at your position. Has Tex taken over your account?