The Lightest Of Lightweights
Ned Lamont ventures into enemy territory with an op-ed in the WSJ; of particular note(?) is the wannabe Senator’s plan for Iraq:
By every available metric, the “stay the course” strategy in Iraq is not a winning strategy. Changing course is neither extreme nor weak; it is essential for our national security.
We start with the strongest, best-trained military in the world, and we’ll keep it that way. But here’s how we’ll get stronger by changing course. We must work closely with our allies and treat the rest of the world with respect. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place real protections for ports, airports, nuclear facilities and public transit.
That’s just incoherent. “…[H]ere’s how we’ll get stronger by changing course.” Then…nothing.
Working closely with our allies and treating the world with respect? A platitude, not a policy. Implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission may be a good idea, but it has nothing – nothing – to do with Iraq.
I’m not selectively quoting, either – that’s it.
Connecticut, do you want this man representing you in the Senate?
even funnier is that this is his move to get moderates.
I’m less than inspired.
Yeah, but Joe Lieberman french kissed Bush. So there.
It’s funny because the first paragraph is exactly right and exactly what Americans, and presumably Connecticutians (??) as well, want to hear. If Lamont were at all sensible, a message like that would make him extremely popular. “Stay the course” has been a laughably stupid policy and it amazes me to no end that Democrats aren’t doing a better job of capitalizing on that.
Even funnier is his apology for his campaign director’s sliming of an entire city in his own state:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Connecticut-Senate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
He better get the loons off his bus pronto, or else he’ll be sinking like a rock shortly.
Hi Ryan,
“Stay the course” is not the policy and never has been the policy in Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq, America, and the Iraqi government have made many policy changes. I expect both America and Iraq will continue to make changes based on circumstances. “Stay the course” is simply a pejorative way of criticizing the current administration without offering any realistic suggestions.
What do you believe needs to be changed and why?
What exactly is Joe Lieberman’s “plan” re: Iraq? It seems to me that, to the extent he has a plan, it’s just to cross his fingers and hope that Iraq gets better. I don’t see why that sort of ostrich-in-the-sand approach makes Joe a “heavyweight” and Lamont a “lightweight.” Joe strikes me as the most unserious person in Washington on this topic. As a reporter put it recently, he seems to have “lost the plot” in Iraq.
Peter Galbraith has an article in the Guardian (I believe) this morning which calls for the partition of Iraq and strategic redeployment with a small, “over the horizon” force in Kurdstan. That’s pretty much what Lamont is calling for. I’m sure there are many reasonable objections to such a plan, but at least it’s a plan.
David, if “stay the course” is just a pejorative, then it’s pretty much as good as “cut and run”. I’m not going to pretend that both sides aren’t big fans of empty rhetoric, but here’s a fairly simple fact: whatever Bush is doing, it really doesn’t seem to be working. Iraq is a mess – we have essentially one city under any semblance of control. On top of that, Hamas and Hezbollah are increasing in influence, and we’ve essentially abandoned Afghanistan. It’s painfully obvious to everyone who isn’t a Republican that our Middle East strategy is pretty much nonexistent and at this point I will take ANYTHING over what we’ve got. It is to the Democrats’ disadvantage that they haven’t proposed any substantive changes.
Whoa, Anonymous – how do you get partition and strategic redeployment from what Lamont said? Not elsewhere, I’m talking about right here, in this incohorent piece that he felt worthy enough to submit as an op-ed…
And what kind of solution is partition? It’s worked so well in North and South Vietnam, North and South Korea, the U.S. and the Confederate States of America, Israel and Palestine, the Balkans, East and West Germany – sure, why not, partition…what a plan…
Mark, are you honestly suggesting that partition isn’t the longterm solution for Israel and Palestine? Or that the Balkans aren’t better off partitioned than otherwise? Does it matter at all that Iraq’s boundaries were invented more or less arbitrarily by colonial powers in the first place?
Ryan, it could be argued that partitioning by the British when they were in full-fledged colonial mode is what got us where we are in the first place (as your own last question acknowledges). It is not an unalloyed good, nor is it an unalloyed evil – but to just say we’ll partition Iraq (as if it were our call to make) and redeploy is a fantasy…
Oh, and not to ignore your question – I prefer a two-state solution, yes, for Israel and Palestine, but I feel less optimistic about the prospect now than I have – well, ever…
“Stay the course” isn’t a pejorative term applied by the Democrats — it’s the phrase that both Bush and Cheney use continually.
The lead editorial in the Times today sums it up nicely: there is no reason to stay the course when that course has demonstrably failed.
how do you get partition and strategic redeployment from what Lamont said? Not elsewhere, I’m talking about right here, in this incohorent piece that he felt worthy enough to submit as an op-ed…
His op-ed was admittedly vague on the subject, but on the other hand, it wasn’t really an op-ed about Iraq. He had limited space and was mainly focusing on his entrepreneurial background and how it informs his views across the board. He has spoken at length about Iraq throughout his campaign. I don’t agree with everything he’s said, but he’s been at least as fulsome in his discussion of Iraq as Lieberman, arguably much more so. Like I said, Lieberman doesn’t seem to have much of any clue what is happening in Iraq much less how to deal with it.
Ryan and Peter,
There is freedom in Iraq for the first time in over 30 years. What we are doing IS working. Democracy and freedom are better than any of the alternatives even with some of the negative consequences of freedom and some of the fallout from years of tyranny.
America has the resources to replace the tyranny of Hussein with our own tyranny in Iraq. We have so far chosen to allow the Iraqis to control their own destiny with our military playing a supporting role.
“Anything” is not better than what is happening now in Iraq. “Anything” could be much, much, worse. There are days when more people are murdered in California than in Iraq.
I’ll ask again; what would you do differently and why would it be any better?
Why am I supposed to believe that freedom amidst anarchy is better than tyranny? I find both pretty much equally terrible, I must say. Freedom and democracy are meaningless without stability.
On top of that, it’s not altogether clear that we aren’t just making more enemies. The Middle East is getting worse rather than better, and you can pretty much trace the decline back to our decision to go to war with Iraq. Making the Iraqi free while simultaneously destabilizing an entire region and paving the way for generations of terrorists isn’t what I call a big win.
The first thing I would do is commit an enormous amount of resources to the area. We’re talking 21st century Marshall Plan. Iraq would be covered in U.S. troops, contractors, engineers, and so on. There would be money flowing into Lebanon to repair the damage Israel has done and into Iraq to build infrastructure and pacify the country. I might also take a moment to remember that Afghanistan is still there and the Taliban is still ruling considerable portions of it, so some of the money and troops would have to be placed there. I would fire Rice, Rumsfeld, and Cheney (or rather ask Cheney for his resignation) and I would replace them with people who actually seem to understand the realities of the world (which might require begging Colin Powell to come back).
Ryan,
Are you saying we should pay Halliburton to completely rebuild Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan? I’m sure the Democrats would support that one!
If you choose tyranny over freedom, you get what you deserve and then you never get to choose again. Freedom with the accompanying chaos is always better than tyranny without chaos. Chaos, just like in America, is an attribute of freedom. There is no freedom without some chaos.
I don’t think Iraq needs a Marshal Plan, but perhaps our government or the World Bank could insure part of the investments of American corporations in Iraq. But then you still have the problem of the Democrats who don’t like outsourcing and want money invested and spent in America. I could support your idea, but I’m not sure the political parties would.
Ryan:
1) “There is freedom in Iraq for the first time in over 30 years. What we are doing IS working.”
I would not go so far as to say that the people in Iraq are free or democratic. The first criterion of democracy is whether the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. In Iraq, it does not. There are competing militias which are effectively maintaining (or disrupting) order. The central government is weak and has very little real power – while it was great to see people with purple thumbs, the fact is that they voted for a central government which exercises very little control. The Sunnis are marginalized and have negligible political power – the top Sunni in the government is now threatening to quit. So regrettably I can’t agree with you in the assertion that because Iraqis have voted and there have now been three governments since the invasion, that they are a free people living in a democratic state.
2) “What would you do differently and why would it be any better? “
We are in a complete mess which offers no good options. In my opinion, invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and the occupation made the Keystone Kops look like the model of efficiency. I believe that we owe a great debt to the Iraqis for destabilizing their country, ruining their infrastructure, and unleashing a civil war which has claimed untold tens of thousands of lives. (By way of comparison: the death toll in Iraq in the past month was roughly triple the death toll in Israel and Lebanon).
In my opinion, the best option we have is to sponsor a plebiscite which asks Iraqis if we should stay or go. If we believe in democracy, this is its truest form. If they want us to go, we should leave. If they want us to stay, we should establish a timeline for disengaging so that we do not have an indefinite commitment into the future.
The last post was to David, not Ryan — sorry –
“I believe that we owe a great debt to the Iraqis for destabilizing their country, ruining their infrastructure, and unleashing a civil war which has claimed untold tens of thousands of lives.”
A civil war is what many of them have wished for over the last two generations, so that’s not a relevant point here, simply because the fear of being executed by Saddam’s secret police kept their other options under wraps. You call that prior situation an improvement for the average Iraqi? Another specious point is the cry of “untold thousands of lives.” Shall we compare death figures presently with the benign rule of Saddam? I do agree with your idea of a plebiscite, but what happens in your world if they come out in favor of us “staying the course?” Where will we get the additional troops that some are screaming for in this post, where will we get the additional funding, what will our timetable be at that point? What will the Democratic party say – will they accept the “will of the people, or go back and start carping about all the things that have gone wrong, we need to bring the troops home, blah, blah, blah.
1) Any evidence that Iraqis wished for a civil war killing three thousand people a month for the past two generations?
2) Why is “untold tens of thousands of lives” specious? Bush himself estimated the dead at 30,000 about a year ago — most other estimates are much higher — what is specious about that?
3) We have no way of knowing how many people died under Saddam — unlike, say, the Nazis, there is no meticulous record keeping — so it’s anyone’s guess if there was a higher death rate then or now. However, I find it difficult to believe that one hundred innocents died every day under Saddam.
4) If the Iraqis vote to keep us, then we stay for the length of time of our choosing. It seems reasonable to me to put some sort of time limit as well as a timetable for a phased withdrawal as a guideline so the Iraqis can plan around us. If you put a gun to my head, I would say two years with a phased withdrawal in the second year.
5) I can’t speak for the Democratic Party, only myself. Like the Palestinians, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
“Any evidence that Iraqis wished for a civil war killing three thousand people a month for the past two generations?”
When you realize that the ancient animosities between the Sunnis and the Shia goes back over a thousand years, it’s not too hard to imagine that many of them were waiting for just the right moment when they would be free to arm themselves and start murdering their hated neighbors. You see this dynamic being played out on a larger scale, with Shia – dominated Iran supplying weapons and training to harm Sunni – dominated countries like Lebanon. The religious fervors never went away during Saddam’s reign of terror – they were just sublimated.
Debt Consolidation – Your Path To Financial Freedom!…
Debt consolidation is a convenient and systematic approach towards the timely repayment of your debt. It helps you by amalgamating all your loans or arrears into a single monthly payment, thereby reducing your burden to a great extent….
True Liberty>True republic>Anarchy=Democracy>Communism=Dictatorship=Tyrrany
Does that answer anything?