Why Congress shouldn't run the war...

#1

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,687
Likes
62,054
#1
From the New Republic - a neo-liberal publication:

Congress Ignorant On Iraq, The New Republic: How Can Congress Run Iraq If It Doesn't Know A Thing About It? - CBS News

More than that, congressional leaders often seem loath even to hear about events on the ground. During General Petraeus's visit to Washington last week, for example, House Democrats at first denied the Iraq commander an opportunity to brief them, citing "scheduling conflicts." And, when he finally did brief Congress, the evidence of progress that Petraeus was expected to present was dismissed before he even offered it. "He's the commander," Senator Carl Levin reasoned. "We always know that commanders are optimistic about their policies." The joke here, of course, is that Levin and his colleagues were not so long ago denouncing the Bush administration — and rightly so — for the sin of disparaging military expertise. True, civilians have no obligation to heed that expertise. They do, however, have an obligation to be informed or, at a minimum, to listen.
Obliviousness testifies to the virtue and good intentions of members of Congress who, in truth, couldn't care less what comes next in Iraq. It invites Americans to indulge in the conceit that what happens in Washington obviates the need to think seriously about what happens in Baghdad.

Most of all, illiteracy makes for good politics. There is the conviction, to paraphrase McCain, that winning a war takes precedence over winning an election. But it isn't so clear that this conviction guides a partisan brawl in which the Senate majority leader can gush, "We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war." In such an environment, the subordination of facts to politics inform matters small and large, from the relatively trivial question of whether U.S. troops still operate in Tal Afar to enormous questions regarding the future of the U.S. enterprise in Iraq.
 
#2
#2
I don't know if there is anyone in Washington that is qualified to run this war. That was made apparent a long time ago.
 
#3
#3
The most disturbing (but not surprising) thing about the article is the last paragraph. Leaving is as much about politics as going was.

Is it worse that the critics commit the same sins they condemn? Depends on your perspective I guess.
 
#4
#4
The most disturbing (but not surprising) thing about the article is the last paragraph. Leaving is as much about politics as going was.

Is it worse that the critics commit the same sins they condemn? Depends on your perspective I guess.

I think that the Democrats are absolutely moronic in trying this about-face approach to the war. Most of them voted in favor of it, in many cases it was purely political as you stated. I cannot, however, blame them, or most level-headed Republicans for representing what was then a popular opinion. Unfortunately the support of the war was propagated by a manipulative commander-in-chief and his advisers.

It has been mentioned on more than a few occasions that at one point, a pretty good majority of Americans thought that Iraq had direct ties to 9/11. It only goes to show that the American public is entirely too reactionary when it comes to such matters. The Democrats were in the wrong then, if for no other reason than their unwillingness to challenge a popular (at the time) President in a hasty and ill-planned operation. I have said time and time again, I would have supported this war somewhat, if it had not been started and sold under false pretense. We probably did need to remove Saddam to prevent future atrocities, but we needed a much better plan to begin with.

Now the Democrats want to act like they knew all along how bad of an idea it was, and how we should have focused on other problem regions. I call it a bunch of B.S.

You are dead on in calling it hypocrisy, or maybe just both sides should man-up (so to speak) and admit they were wrong from the beginning.
 
#5
#5
The author is a neocon who writes books with Bill Kristol. I don't think he is a reliable voice of the Left.
 
#6
#6
by the way ViB, thanks for changing the word liberal to neo-liberal. It is a much more accurate assessment of The New Republics political leanings.
 
#7
#7
The author is a neocon who writes books with Bill Kristol. I don't think he is a reliable voice of the Left.

That he is not, but, he does make some valid points. Then again, The New Republic is not exactly a liberal publication either.
 
#8
#8
Strange how Bill Kristol's best friend and partner on so many views is the senior editor of a "neo-liberal" publication. That should speak volumes for the rest of the neocons who got us into Iraq to begin with.
 
#9
#9
Strange how Bill Kristol's best friend and partner on so many views is the senior editor of a "neo-liberal" publication. That should speak volumes for the rest of the neocons who got us into Iraq to begin with.

well, neo-liberalism isn't really liberalism, it is more of an economic line of thinking than anything. weird as it sounds, one could hold many ideals of both the neoconservative and neo-liberal lines of thinking.
 
#10
#10
The fact that it is not a liberal pub (liberal leaning?) is not the real issue.

I think the points are valid and echo my concerns about the situation. Regardless of how we got there, don't we want to make the best of a bad situation?

Reid spoke this weekend an continued his mantra that we should withdraw because Patreus said we can't have a military solution. Well, that's not exactly what Patreus said. He said it can't be ONLY a military solution but that the military has to do its part first. Why is Reid "misleading" okay but Bush "misleading" not.

Again, is it a greater sin to practice the very thing you accuse your opponent of? It has to at least be equally bad.
 
#11
#11
The fact that it is not a liberal pub (liberal leaning?) is not the real issue.

I think the points are valid and echo my concerns about the situation. Regardless of how we got there, don't we want to make the best of a bad situation?

Reid spoke this weekend an continued his mantra that we should withdraw because Patreus said we can't have a military solution. Well, that's not exactly what Patreus said. He said it can't be ONLY a military solution but that the military has to do its part first. Why is Reid "misleading" okay but Bush "misleading" not.

Again, is it a greater sin to practice the very thing you accuse your opponent of? It has to at least be equally bad.

I touched on this before I got off topic. I think that hypocrisy abounds on both sides in Congress, and yes it is at least as bad, if not worse to practice the same evils you accuse your opponents of.
 
#12
#12
well, neo-liberalism isn't really liberalism, it is more of an economic line of thinking than anything. weird as it sounds, one could hold many ideals of both the neoconservative and neo-liberal lines of thinking.

As with many terms, meanings change over times.

Liberalism has always been associated with the idea of "free trade". Contrasting views were Nationalism (protectionism) and Marxism.

Liberalism today is not associated with free trade and from what little I know, neo-liberalism is more based in the concepts of free trade than other "liberal" ideas. However, neo-liberalism is still a domain for democrats rather than republicans.
 
#13
#13
To use the logic of another poster here...how many lives has Reid's misleading cost? Who is the greater 'misleader'?

How do we make the best of this situation? What is the answer? Many on the Right are blasting the Dems for what they call 'cut and run' but all quietly gripe about the surge. They have yet to offer anything as well other than let's just wait and see how this thing turns out.

This is a battle of hypocrisy on both sides. But one side's weighs far less on the scale of public opinion than the other.
 
#14
#14
As with many terms, meanings change over times.

Liberalism has always been associated with the idea of "free trade". Contrasting views were Nationalism (protectionism) and Marxism.

Liberalism today is not associated with free trade and from what little I know, neo-liberalism is more based in the concepts of free trade than other "liberal" ideas. However, neo-liberalism is still a domain for democrats rather than republicans.

You are correct. Liberalism has started to take on more Socialist ideals, and neo-liberalism is more or less getting back to more traditional ideals, the prefix, "neo" is a bit misleading.
 
#15
#15
This is a battle of hypocrisy on both sides. But one side's weighs far less on the scale of public opinion than the other.

The answer lies in taking a long-term view. Public opinion is more subtle than what is represented in day-to-day polling on yes/no; multiple choice questions. Who doesn't want an end to war? Who doesn't want an end to the loss of American lives? Iraqi lives? Ask the question with a real set of alternatives - a set of alternatives that accurately (impossible) shows the consequences of different choices. I bet you get another answer. The dilemma of the politician always lies in choosing between best for a few interests and best for greater interests.

I'm not advocating the Bush position or the Reid/Pelosi position. Rather, I wish our elected leaders would put the best for the country first.

The debate about the war is a huge disappointment. I posted this article simply to emphasize that NEITHER side is really debating the issue.
 
#16
#16
You are correct. Liberalism has started to take on more Socialist ideals, and neo-liberalism is more or less getting back to more traditional ideals, the prefix, "neo" is a bit misleading.

Yes. Adam Smith, capitalist to the extreme was considered an extreme advocate of liberalism!
 

VN Store



Back
Top