Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBush's Victory: Blame the Democrats
The argument in the Capitol last week was about victory. Legislators such as Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham believe, against all the evidence, that victory in Iraq is possible. They insist like puppets that "the surge has been a success" and see signs of victory. The president proclaims that we are winning the war. Gen. David Petraeus says that the progress is fragile and reversible, that there is not yet light at the end of the tunnel, victory is not right around the corner and the champagne is still at the back of the refrigerator.
We know that many in the Pentagon think victory in Iraq is impossible. Navy Adm. William Fallon was dumped because he agreed with them and disagreed with Petraeus. He argued that the military is traumatized by the duration of the war and the constant increase in tours of duty. Fallon was, some of the neocons say, guilty of insubordination. If you tell the civilian leaders that this war cannot be won and that military is stretched to its limit, you're insubordinate. The president knows better.
There was a temporary decline in violence because Petraeus bought out the Sunni tribes, and Moqtada al-Sadr, for reasons of his own, called a truce -- perhaps at the instigation of his Iraqi allies. But violence was in full swing again while the congressional testimony raged on. About 1,500 members of the Iraqi Army deserted in the middle of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's attack on the Shites in southern Iraq. Yet the neocon twins who thought this war up, Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol, smilingly proclaim that we're on the road to victory.
Petraeus thinks victory will be an Iraq relatively free of violence. The president seems to think victory means that Iraq becomes a free and independent democratic state. The latter will certainly not happen, not in nine months. But his real goal is to keep the war going until his term is over. Then he can accuse the Democrats of "losing Iraq." This recalls the Republican strategy of the early 1950s, when the Democrats were accused by the same kind of jingoistic hyper-patriots of losing China. No one seemed to ask whether China was ours to lose.
Could the war have been won? The question assumes that he went to war with clear goals -- and clear means of winning it. Perhaps with the 300,000 troops that Gen. Eric Shinseki had requested, a sophisticated occupation policy and shrewd administrators to sustain the initial victory, the war could have ended four years ago. However, as is evident, most Iraqis don't want to be occupied by Americans. Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thought that "shock and awe" would do the trick with less than half that number. The conceit that an extra couple of brigades would end violence and force the Iraqi government to get its act together was of the same order of fatuous folly.
Thus President Bush and those around him can go to their graves convinced that they were on the edge of victory, but the Democrats stole it away from them.
Some Democrats assure me that no matter who wins the primary, Democrats will win the election because of the war.
Don't two-thirds of the American public think the war was a mistake in the first place? Can McCain win an election during a sharp recession and an ongoing war?
So the primary is really irrelevant.
Only if you believe Clinton's fictionalized autobiography, in which she helped negotiate the peace in Northern Ireland, came under sniper fire in Bosnia and always opposed NAFTA -- and thus can be trusted to tell the truth.
Andrew Greeley is a priest in good standing of the Archdiocese of Chicago for 52 years, a columnist for 40 years, a sociologist for 45 years, a novelist for 28 years, distinguished lecturer at the University of Arizona for 28, research associate at National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago for 46 years.
© Copyright 2008 Digital Chicago, Inc.
23 Comments so far
Show Allsomeone writes "Don't two-thirds of the American public think the war was a mistake in the first place?"
maybe now, but not 5 years ago. ah, agreed mr. white, most do not disagree with war, just an unfavorable outcome.
shouldn't we be used to that scenario by now? nevermind, making people dead and addicted to oil is way more profitable for a few than making the many healthy.
In the news today, 1 in 5 Iraqi vets suffer PTSD, and the same number suffer traumatic brain injury.
Is it worth it?
Yes it's worth it . As a matter of fact in addition to the "1 in 5 Iraqi vets suffering PTSD" 1 in 5 Americans ( you pick 'em should be suffering the same "privations" as Iraqis since that was the same or greater ratio of Americans polled who agreed with the invasion of Iraq , at least in the beginning when mission was accomplished . See , it's not that Americans don't like war ; on the contrary , they don't like losing .
Was it worth the lives of about half a billion Americans to keep USA a single nation and promulgate the beginnings of a yet-unfulfilled Civil-Rights Movement. Many thought so including Abraham Lincoln .
Greeley writes: "Some Democrats assure me that no matter who wins the primary, Democrats will win the election because of the war.
Don't two-thirds of the American public think the war was a mistake in the first place? Can McCain win an election during a sharp recession and an ongoing war?"
Ooooh, Father Greeley you are ASSUMING an educated, informed and rational electorate where, I'm sad to say, one no longer exists - at least one large enough to form a majority.
The first comment on this thread from satr9prodxns was spot on. Goering had it right at Nuremberg and successive political generations understand how easily it is to manipulate people who have been stripped of a traditional classical liberal arts education. And America in 2008 is far less educated in logic and rhetoric than the Germans were in '32 (to their credit they did not give Hitler a majority in the last free election). So where does that leave us?
In a very frightening and dark place unfortunately.
Mark my words: President McCain. And you know exactly how it will happen and how they will do it and yet, thanks to the corporate media and the general state of the American electorate, those of us who understand what is going on will not be able to stop it. It will be the ugliest thing you ever saw and it will make most of us sicker than even Bush winning in 2004.
And I hope to high heaven that I am wrong.
Democratic voters, of course, remain the stupidest people on the face of the earth and always will be.
They keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils' but end up with the greater of two evils. Democrats gave Bush the power to start the war then kept funding it, so they're indeed to blame. They are career criminals, worse than Republicans. At least with Republicans there's no deception, we know what to expect.
canuckchuck__ I was also furious that the Dems did not at least give impeachment a try, even though it might mot have been possible, however we did not want Cheney as Pres, so we would have had to try for a double impeachment. That may have been part of the reason they did not go for it. Also, if that would have been possible, Pelosi would have been the new Pres, and that may have been why she said it was off the table.
As for the original vote that gave Bush the right to invade, I believe the Repug big majority could have put it through even if all Dems voted against it, so it is not correct to state that the Dems enabled the invasion. For instance, after 9-11, Hillary would probably have been recalled if she had voted with the few that went against Bush-Cheny since she was a NY Senator. Sen Hagel lost much of his stature in his own state
by opposing the war.
I am not happy with the Dems performance since the last election, but with six years of total Repug control with the 9-11 wind at their back, it is unfair to say the Dems could have put it all right. The Dems only had about one vote in the majority and that was the great Lieberman, who is a warmonger, so fat chance of getting anything stopped.
They might have been able to have stopped funding, but we would have seen the greatest uproar about abandoning the troops with no supplies that you could imagine, so forget that idea.
This is a nasty little secret the sheeple don't like to talk about given their zeal for Obama and Clinton: i.e., the Democrats are every bit as culpable for the Iraq war and its ongoing tragedy as are the Republicans. Despite the fact that the Dems control both houses of Congress and have FUNDED the war since they promised to do otherwise in 2004.
canuckchuck - I wholeheartedly agree. I was ripshat when, largely to close their session and get home, the US Congress abrogated their Constitutionally-mandated birthright to wage war in the name of the American citizens they represent and handed it on a platter to the dimwit GWB. I was literally screaming at the TV, but no one I later talked to saw the problem. Besides, most of them parroted, Saddam met bin Laden in Prague to plan 9/11 and Clinton cut the CIA budget so poor old GWB couldn't prevent the disaster from happening. I even had CIA friends tell me, when I asked tongue-in-cheekly if we were going to invade Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis (with CIA-provided visas, as it later turns out), that we'd finish off the Saudis just as soon as we mopped up Iraq.
I'm still furious. Everything that has happened in congress since the invasion of Iraq has spewed from that single horrifying vote, and since none of them will admit their monsterous wrong, they keep going along with Bush's illegal occupation. And now it seems as if were about to hand the red button to Johnny Bomb Bomb.
Ever read "Canticle for Liebowitz"? That's where we're headed, again...
I blame the demo-rats NOW...for not impeaching that criminal Chimp-in-Chief, or stopping the funding to the illegal occupation of Iraq....and for allowing the illegal invasion to go ahead in the first place ( we didn't think he would REALLY invade when we voted to invade....duh!)
Everytime I check out the violent military videos posted at viral forums by soldiers, all I see is American troops dropping 2000lb WMD's on poor neighborhoods.
Democrats are complicit in everything this Bush regime has done.
And for that reason Dems will not get my vote. Kapisch?
Yes, Andrew Greely__ Let`s not wait for the Repubs to blame the Dems for everything, as that will certainly be the case. The Dems will be blamed for mishandling the occupation of Iraq, raising taxes to pay for Bush`s war, and trying to get the country going again.
Even though the Repubs had total control of the administration, and both houses of Congress for six years and Bush only had to veto one bill in about 5 years because the Repub zombies gave him everything he wanted, let`s blame those rotten Dems for not straughtening it all out immediatly even though they only had a bare majority for two years.
Put the blame where it belongs, on the Repubs and the dummies that voted for them twice.
I sure agree with your facts, but in no way do I believe that the Democrats are not capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I have a hard time believing that wasn't the goal in 2000 and 2004, and Hillary seems determined to make it a threepeat.
"...having a mad man heading one of the three branches of government..."
I believe he's heading all three branches of government now, General Lee.
How did that happen????
Bush does not expect to retire as Daniel David suggests. The Democrats have blown an opportunity to stop the insanity through swift, direct action. They have gone along with all of Bush's requests to continue the illegal war with Iraq, and have done nothing to alleviate the dire economic problems Bush caused. I guess they get free gas for their limos. I know they don't give a damn for a citizenry going broke, and that includes their silly candidates.
There will never, under any circumstances, be democracy in Iraq. When this criminal enterprise is finally over, months, years or decades from now, whenever, Iraq will look almost like it did under Saddam Hussein, except the Shiites will control the totally corrupt government, and not the Sunnis. Your grandchildren will be paying off this debt (if the world economy doesn't collapse before then). The Republicrats will still be crapping on our heads and laughing about how stupid the American people are, how easily they will swallow the most baldfaced and ridiculous lies. Charles Gibson III will be asking Chelsea Clinton why she doesn't wear a lapel flag pin and what about that report on Fox News that her husband beats her up. Colt Firearms,Inc. will become the official sponsor of the presidential inauguration of George Prescott Bush. The Supreme Court will rule that the guillotine is a legal form of capital punishment and that national prime time broadcasts of executions by beheading, sponsored by the Gillette Razor Company, are equally legal. "Bend Over and Grab Your Ankles", the latest release by American Idol winner Lance Sterling will sell 12 million copies in 3 weeks.
Bush (from retirement) probably will blame the Democrats for losing both Iraq and the economic issues. The trick is to have citizens ruminating on whether he's right about that
AFTER Obama is elected, not BEFORE---which is the current Republican goal.
Weaving down the American highway
Through the litter and the wreckage and the cultural junk;
Bloated with entitlement, loaded on propaganda,
Now we're driving dazed and drunk.
Been down the road to Damascus, the road to Mandalay;
Met the ghost of Caesar on the Appian Way.
He said "It's hard to stop this bingeing once you get a taste,
But the road to empire is a bloody, stupid waste."
Behold the bitten apple, the power of the tools,
But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools
And it's a long road out of Eden.
- Don Henley, Glenn Frey, Timothy B. Schmidt
Even the National Defense University thinks the war is a "a major war and a major debacle."
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
KaneJeeves beat me to the punch and expresses my feelings well--all I could think of while reading the above is that 'this is no 'war', it was an illegal invasion and now it's an illegal occupation.' Until the Dems can step up and call it what it is, they are complicit. But then they have been all along.
GWB is an island infinitely and eternally distanced from the shores of reality. Unfortunately, having a mad man heading one of the three branches of government did not seem to register-as a bad thing-with at least 45% of the voters. Forty five percent of American voters are a lot of non-thinking, cattle grazing people. Progress must be terrifying to some Americans.
In the news today, 1 in 5 Iraqi vets suffer PTSD, and the same number suffer traumatic brain injury.
Is it worth it?
Good article, but it proves another point: the neocons have won the war of words. Even critics like Mr. Greeley call it "the War in Iraq". Using the term War allows use of other terms like "hero", "victory", etc., which can be used like clubs against naysayers.
Every Dem should call it what it is/was: an illegal occupation. Bush's Illegal Occupation. They need to use this phrase over and over, at every level, because come Jan '09, the "War" will become "The Democrats War" and Bush will have escaped.
cue the "democrats are gonna raise your taxes" line in 3, 2,...
but whatever you do, don't follow that line with 'because i had no fucking clue what i was doing'