> My guess is that the messengers of withdrawal f
> from Iraq can avoid being shot only if they pair
> it up that message with a truly persuasive and
> inspiring plan for fighting the overall war in a
> better and more winnable way.

So:

1) Radical Republicans launch an unwinnable "war" against a tactic, and along the way topple one of the bugbears of the neoconservatives. Oh, and also implement the "stir up the hornets nest" theory that the neocons also love, and raise oil prices to the benefit of...
2) As predicted by many many people, mostly "liberal" but some old-fashioned conservatives as well, the invasion of Iraq is a disaster.
3) W and Rumsfeld make it worse by "staying the course"
4) As described by the NYT this Sunday past, Rove and Bush develop a new strategy: run out the clock for 29 months and dump the problem in the lap of the next President
5) Grown-up Democrats called in to clean up the mess (again!)
6) DOLSTCHOSSLEGENDE!!! You can feel it comin' baby!

The Democrats in general, and the Presidental candidates in particular, had _best_ spend 2007-2008 making the case that Iraq is a shit bed that it isn't possible to unshit, that it is the Radical _Republicans_ fault, that there will be no "win", and that the Radials need to be sent back to the political wilderness for 200 years.

If not, if we get a flip-flopping President Hillary in 2009 with a "plan for victory", well, look for President Jeb in 2012 and "liberals" headed to political prisions shortly thereafter: complete victory by Rove.

Cranky

DISCLAIMER: Kevin donated to the Wes Clark for President campaign.

I know it's easy to say this, but: for the good of the country and the good of the party, someone better figure out how to do this.

Feel free to do it yourself, Kevin, instead of assigning everyone else homework. You're as bad here as the Dem politicians that you always complain about who talk endlessly about what needs to be done instead of just doing it.

Then again, I spend all my money on Santorum. Both kinds.

Wow, Kevin, did you ever prove that the Democrats' mealy-mouthed alternative is worse politically than the simple (albeit stupid) stay the course.

But I also question everyone's political memories here. Yes, McGovern was a liberal, but he was also the first victim of an incredibly well-financed, unscrupulous political attack machine. A corageous war hero was ripped apart by a President who hadn't served - sound familiar?

And the continuing attacks from Democratic "friends" on "McGovernites" obscures that reality.

But there's an alternative: persuading the American public that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism, one that relies more on economic engagement and public diplomacy and less on mid-20th century notions of fighting wars against uniformed armies. Unfortunately, most Dems don't know how to do this, and their prescriptions end up sounding mushy and unconvincing.

And for good reason. There is no better way to fight the terrorists than the way George W Bush is fighting them. The best way to fight the terrorists is by preemptively attacking them first rather than having them attack us first. We're fighting them in Beirut and Baghdad so we don't have to fight them in Boston and Birmingham. Your prescription of "economic engagement and public diplomacy" is nothing more than the typical left wing plan of offering therapy and understaning for the terrorists. This failed when Bill Clinton offered it, and it's only going to fail more if we try it again.

But even worse, any liberal plan to fight the terrorists can't be trusted because of the angry left's attack on Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman was the strongest supporter of the view that we have to take the war to the terrorists rather than sit back and wait and now the angry left is launching a inquisition on him to kick him out of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party need to destroy Kos and the angry left's insurgency on the Democratic Party if it wishes to regain the trust of the American people that they can be trusted on the War on Terrorism. If Lieberman loses, the American people will know you care more about appeasing the terrorists than killing them.

Democratic politicians should assert the GOP is not winning the war on terror, and reduce that war to the war against Al Qaeda. After all, Osama is still a free man.

Reducing the US presence in Iraq is thus the right war to win the war on terror.

I think that is the general frame which should be used.

I don't think the messenger will get shot. If conditions remain the same in Iraq in 08 as they are now--and I hope they're not--and the repubs haven't adapted, a democrat who aggressively, and with thinly veiled, contempt, condemned the Bush administration, the campaign itself would provide enough of a platform for the message to get through. The candidate would have to say he/she would not preclude the use of robust military force in any other situation.

Here it comes: Iraq is on the cusp of becoming a democracy, which will unleash the fourth wave (see Huntington). Liberals are afraid that their opposition to the war will make them look like the deluded fools they are. As such, they SAY Iraq isn't going well, to try and influence public opinion against spreading democracy. Talk about putting party before country...

At the same time, the loss of Vietnam, followed by America's humiliation in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, were unquestionably part of the Reagan resurgence too. It's not as if this is just a myth made up by later generations of Gipper enthusiasts.

Sure it is. Reagan, despite all his cowboy tough talk, did negotiate with terrorists -- after all, the first part of his harebrained Iran-Contra scandal was ransoming American hostages from Iran -- when he wasn't outright capitulating to them (running from Beirut with his tail between his legs after the Marine barracks bombing).

And, of course, Reagan was master of the current GOP tactic of using the military as politcal window-dressing (Grenada, anyone?), a tradition Bush and Rove continue to this day, even as they shortchange veterans' benefits.

The GOP's alleged advantage in national security is 100% marketing, nothing more. Given that the current debacle in the Middle East can be laid squarely at the door of the Republicans, it's high time for the Democrats to challenge their bogus branding. If there's a lesson to be drawn from Bush's disastrous presidency, it's that Republicans simply can't be trusted with national security.

We can win more by our good example.

But if we have our heads shoved square up our butts and shout Stay the Course!, it doesn't make a pretty picture.

"It's very unlikely that this means the American public is ready to support a broadly dovish foreign policy"

I have no idea where you got that partciular straw men, Kevin. Please name one leading Democrat who you would describe as "broadly dovish."

Most Democrats I talk to are interested in seeing the murderer of 3000 Americans punished. Unlike Bush, who is frankly not that concerned about him.

Whew, Al's post is like a fresh breeze of air coming from another planet. Hizbollah's centered in Southern Lebanon. Who are "we" fighting in Beirut? What does defeating Hizbollah have to do with the US war on terror? Wouldn't peace between the Israelis and Palestines contribute more to US security than another war in the Middle East? Doesn't Al know that terror attacks have gone up since Bush has been president?

Here's some ideas

An Alternative Foreign Policy

Here’s my two-pronged strategy:

1. The Doctrine of Retaliation

The U.S. reserves the right to treat any country which sponsors terrorism against U.S. citizens or our allies, or which provides direct support in any way to groups or individuals that do so, as legitimate targets for swift and decisive military retaliation. The U.S. reserves the right to target foreign leaders and military installations in any nation that is complicit in such conduct. The U.S will not invade or occupy foreign nations, but it reserves the right to cripple the military and organizational capabilities of any overtly hostile regimes. The only reason large numbers of ground troops will be deployed is for peace keeping and humanitarian missions or to repel hostile aggression. (For example, if Iran continues to fund Hezbollah and Hezbollah continues to attack our ally Israel than the U.S. has the right to target the leaders of Iran along with Iran’s military capabilities.)

2. Democracy and Human Rights Promotion

Having established the clear boundaries of what policies or actions will result in military retaliation by the U.S., the U.S. government and its people want to make clear that we empathize with the plight of all those who live under autocratic rule and are denied basic human rights. The U.S. openly invites all nations to the negotiating table that are willing to sign non-aggression pacts with the U.S. and its allies and promote democracy and human rights within their respective countries. Such conduct will be rewarded in the strongest terms in the form of large sums of development aid, preferential trade agreements, increased security guarantees, cultural exchanges, assistance with institution building; everything that can be done to accelerate the entry of these nations into the community of advanced democratic societies.

This two-pronged approach provides clear incentives to the governments and citizens throughout the Arab and Muslim world (and other regions as well). Citizens who vote for regimes with expansionist and extremist ideologies must recognize the potential risk that this poses to their safety and the stability of their societies. Citizens who are currently denied a say in their government have an added incentive to push for reform, given both the positive potential benefits and to avoid the potential risks if their governments continue to pursue hostile actions against the U.S. and its allies.

As to the Iraq War, which is clearly not consistent with this new foreign policy vision, the first step is to admit unequivocally that it was a mistake. While the U.S. and its allies had the right to pressure Saddam, renew inspections, and even strike at Saddam’s military capabilities, we did not have the justification to invade and occupy the country for the sake of regime change. In addition, we invaded without a clear plan, anywhere near the required number of troops or allies, and we completely underestimated the sectarian tensions that would rip the country apart once Saddam was toppled. Our current strategy is entirely counter-productive because we are helping to prop up a government that is fueling the militias and carrying out a large portion of the sectarian violence.

At this juncture we must view our mission as minimizing the civilian casualties and promoting humanitarian assistance, while at the same time, continuing to try to broker a peace deal among the warring factions. Abandoning Iraq completely would be morally wrong since we have helped to create this dire situation. We need to make clear to the Europeans that we will not be in Iraq indefinitely and that a massive civil war near their border is not in their interest, and therefore, they should help establish an international peace-keeping force. Only after we admit that the war was a strategic miscalculation will this possible. If necessary we should work with the Iraqis to divide their country in order to prevent all-out civil war. The bottom line: we must acknowledge that now we are in damage control mode, trying our best to do right by the millions of Iraqis who have been caught up in this catastrophe.

J.S.

http://voicesofreason.info

Kevin wrote: "Mark Schmitt is skeptical of the common notion that, just as it did during the Vietnam war, opposition to the Iraq war will hurt Democrats at the polls [...] recent polls on Iraq display an enormous range of opinion, including widely divergent responses to very similar questions."

According to pollster John Zogby:

Let's just look at the numbers from my most recent national poll (July 21). Overall, only 36% of likely voters told us that they agree that the war in Iraq has been "worth the loss of American lives", while 57% disagree. But the partisan splits are more revealing: only 16% of the Democrats polled said the war has been worth while 82% disagree and only 26% of Independents agree the war has been worth it while 72% disagree. On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it, while 23% disagree [...] about one in four Republicans have now pretty much given up on the war.

[...] Indeed, the polling numbers were pretty clear what Democrats and Independents wanted in 2004 - and the fact that they didn't receive the opposition to the war they were looking for from their standard-bearers is the main reason that they lost both the Presidency and did not pick up seats in either house of Congress.

Overwhelming majorities of both Democrats and Independents, as well as one quarter of Republicans, believe that the war in Iraq has not been worth the loss of American lives.

Opposition to the war will not only not "hurt Democrats at the polls", but on the contrary, the vast majority of the electorate is looking for candidates who will run against the war.

On the other hand, Republican candidates who run on "staying Bush's disastrous, dishonest, corrupt and incompetent course" cannot even count on all the Republican electorate's votes at this point.

By 2008, presidential candidates of both major parties will be doing their best to position themselves where Dennis Kucinich was in 2004.

A way to talk about a model for Iraq may be devolution, as when Britain devolved some governmental functions to its' constituent regions and Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments, and the St. George's Cross came back into vogue.

And the way Czechoslovakia became two countries with no friction.

How about instead of "withdraw from Iraq," the message is that Dems need to "invade Washington."

I think that's the ticket.

Samuel Knight wrote "Yes, McGovern was a liberal, but he was also the first victim of an incredibly well-financed, unscrupulous political attack machine. A corageous war hero was ripped apart by a President who hadn't served - sound familiar?"

Nixon did serve. According to the Wikipedia article on Richard Nixon: "During World War II, Nixon served as an officer in the Navy. He received his training at Quonset Point, Rhode Island, and Ottumwa, Iowa, before serving in the supply corps in the South Pacific commanding cargo handling units in SCAT. There he was known as 'Nick' and for his prowess in poker, banking a large sum that helped finance his first campaign for Congress."

We can win more by our good example.

Which is why I've been arguing that the US policy of encouraging Israel's overreaction in Lebanon is not in the US national interest.

I think you're overlooking two things.

One is, a part of the reason the Dems were tarred as weak on national security was that they/we were identified with the RADICAL anti-Vietnam-War movement, and that turned a lot of people off.

Dems = hippies = flag burners and draft-dodgers

Of course, that was a caricature, and it was played up shamelessly by the early RWNM, but I think it also had a lasting effect in defining the "personalities" of the parties with respect to national security.

The other thing I think you're overlooking is that an essential part of fighting terrorism, as shown by the success of the British against the military wing of the IRA among many other examples, is POLICE WORK.

Cut off their funding, cut off their access to weaponry, track down their leaders, infiltrate their organizations, and keep at it. It's not glamorous, it doesn't yield good TV (or big profits for weapons manufacturers), but it's proven to be effective.

No policy for fighting terror is complete without it. And frankly, it sounds tough -- we're gonna get Tough On Terror, and we're gonna do it in an effective way, like our friends the Brits, rather than following nitwit theories by people with no military experience who have accomplished nothing more than getting 3000 of our troops dead.

Doesn't Al know that terror attacks have gone up since Bush has been president?

The Al-bot doesn't "know" anything. It's a machine.

Nixon as Sgt Bilko! Now it all makes sense.

Well, Joel, they don't consider the National Guard as military "service" either.

Withdrawing from Iraq is not just "dovish:" it's about as realpolitik as things get. Anyone saying otherwise is either deluded or lying.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

I think this post is dead on - the way to win and install a foreign policy that works better and kills fewer people, and that will be more to the liking of the more pacifist wing, is not going to be to trumpet that wing's message and declare the Iraq fiasco a vindication of a swing toward pacifist isolationism. But that is how the debate often seems to be shaping up:

Sawicky today fending off a wacky Peretz but with a dubious argument (as it relates to foreign policy):

We need not fear a resurgence of liberalism in the Democratic Party, though its ascendance is far from assured. I'd say we ought to fear more the absence of such a renaissance.

SecularA,

KD doesn't really dispute the poll numbers, but rather feels that they represent skin-deep opinions that could peel away easily.

Al,

Dem's have simply never argeed with Bush that "taking the fight to the terrorists" required invading Iraq, whereas Republican's wholeheartedly accepted it.

A way to talk about a model for Iraq may be devolution, as when Britain devolved some governmental functions to its' constituent regions and Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments, and the St. George's Cross came back into vogue.

And the way Czechoslovakia became two countries with no friction.

A more realistic way to talk about Iraq would be a nascent, bloody civil war that the US is powerless to stop.

Alas, as Israel is learning by its failure to stop Hezbollah's rockets despite the IDF's continued destruction of Lebanon's political and civil infrastructure, this abject, bloody and very public failure shatters the myth of military predominance both nations shared -- a perception the loss of which neither country can afford.

"And the way Czechoslovakia became two countries with no friction. " No friction? Has cld been in a submarine for the past three years? Sheesh.

How about instead of "withdraw from Iraq," the message is that Dems need to "invade Washington."

The people have the power/To wrest the world from fools.

Too bad they won't use it.

Kevin recites another internalized Republican myth: "At the same time, the loss of Vietnam, followed by America's humiliation in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, were unquestionably part of the Reagan resurgence too."

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was promoted by CIA intervention in Afghanistan during the Carter administration, with the clearly foreseen result being to bog down the USSR in their own "Vietnam". Arguably the Soviet's Afghan quagmire -- a direct result of the Carter administration's policy there -- was a major factor leading to the collapse of the USSR.

From a 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [...] We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would [...] The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

I think that Kevin and Cranky are groping for a realistic policy that involves admitting mistakes and relying less on wishful thinking in the future. The problem is that the first Dem to truly articulate such policy options will never be nominated for president. It still needs to be said. Considering that the odds on getting nominated are low in any case, cant some articulate Dem start speaking truth in a logical manner and take the political fall? A short term political crash hasnt sent Howard Dean into the widerness.

Things will have to get a lot worse for the American electorate to embrace harsh medicine. If the bill for the war starts coming home (it is currently paid for by cash influx from China, Japan and the oilstates), maybe Americans will want to get out faster.

Poker genius Nixon in the South Pacific,

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/811/ltnixonca1944nb6.jpg

(Quiz: who in this picture is not really one of the guys?)

Way different things in 1972:

1) Social division, particularly race, was at a boil - Nixon's campaign very effectively played on that
2) We're talking an incumbant president here - not a Congressional race - Dems did fine in House and Senate races in 72
3) McGovern had a horrible campaign - deep divisions at the convention, inept management, a change in the VP along the way
4) Nixon had major successes in foreign policy in 72 - the opening to China, major treaty with the USSR - one of his ads actually featured the Soviet national anthem!
5) He held out the promise of peace and withdrawal in Vietnam - there was a drawdown on troops, so the end seemed to be in sight

How this compares to the debacle in Iraq, a different set of offices up, and the rest of the disaster in the country at the moment I'll leave to the grasping at straws crowd in DC and the media.

The problem, of course, is that Americans do not want compromise, they want submission. Americans are unconcerned with other's legitimate complaints and only want to enforce their hysterical needs for absolute security and market dominance with military force.

The US has not yet properly taken responsibility for its wars in SE Asia. The US needs to apologize to Viet Nam and provide war reparations.

The US needs to acknowledge its role overthrowing Prince Sihanouk, installing Lon Nol and creating the environment possible for the Khmer Rouge Holocaust. The US should pay war reparations to Cambodia.

Admit the use of military force in anything but a direct threat to the Republic is wrong. Very wrong. Another step that should be taken is to try those responsible for the killing. Why McNamara is not serving a life sentence similar to Rudolf Hess is disgusting. Next, hang the generals. The war crimes Nazi generals were hanged for have been equal to the war crimes committed in Viet Nam and Iraq. This may not help Democrats, but it will help the the nation if its national criminals are held responsible and punished. Making them heros makes the situation worse and reinforces the public's nationalist Chauvinism.

Most Muslims who blame the US and advocate violence against it are rationale people with legitimate grievances. I am not talking about al Queda, but about the oppressed Palestinians and Arab/Persian oil slaves. The US has never acknowledged the legitimacy of those grievances for reasons of international politics and its corporate business interests.

Hezbollah is fighting to have Lebanese prisoners held for up to decades by Israel released and for Israel to end its occupation of land that properly belongs to Lebanon. These are legitimate grievances.

Iran wants the US to stop threatening its security, release its frozen economic assets, and have its markets open to commerce. If the US should also guarantee Iran's security, say from Israeli attack, then Iran would become an ally rather than an antagonist.

Mature and thoughtful politicians should be able to argue compromising with Iran and Hezbollah costs almost nothing but would provide enormous benefits. Benefits to the economy and energy supplies. American attitudes of appearing strong and never weak prevent the kind of reaching out required to provide peace. Corporate demonizing of McGovern has served the warmongers of both parties well.

The girl standing next to Nixon, cld?

>> I know it's easy to say this, but: for the
>> good of the country and the good of the party,
>> someone better figure out how to do this.

> Feel free to do it yourself, Kevin, instead of
> assigning everyone else homework.

Agreed. If Kevin is going to fall for that Rove frameshop, the least he can do is bring an actual plan to the table. I for one would be quite curious to see it, given what I understand is the actual situation in Iraq today.

Cranky

Hostile:

You forgot about a U.S. apology / reparations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki too.

Hostile,

Yes, I suggest Democrats run on your agenda.

You know, Nixon appears to be grabbing at her ass.

LOL, Al. Someone should ask Lamont his position on Hostile's agenda (right after we figure out if he is for immediate withdrawal from Iraq or not ; )

Kevin, please, how about some threads on John Conyers' report? It's at http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/iraqrept2.html
(& there's a link that lets you download it as a Word document at the bottom of that page.)

> think that Kevin and Cranky are groping for a
> realistic policy that involves admitting
> mistakes and relying less on wishful thinking
> in the future.

Nicely put. We as Americans have two huge problems facing us: the Iraq situation, and the energy situation. If we keep living in a Rovian fantasyland I suspect the years from 2015 on are going to be very unpleasant. Someone needs to be honest about this. I agree it might be a sacrificial task, but how do you get the traditional media to take that person seriously (cf Kucinich's record of predictions vs. more "conservative" candidates).

However, when Kevin uses phrases such as "pair up that message with a truly persuasive and inspiring plan for fighting the overall war in a better and more winnable way." then I get the impression he is hoping for a Rambo-style intervention that makes all the problems in Iraq go away in a big cluster bomb of smoke. Hint Kevin: liberators aren't supposed to be "winning" 3 years after the end of the fighting; they are supposed to be getting ready to go home with the medals and accolades from their grateful liberatees (and the troops with their war brides and acquired taste for new ethnic foods). The fact that that isn't happening might be a bit of a hint, eh?

Cranky

Gregory,

Yes, that gets at much of the depth of awfulness in this. a) Nothing George Bush does could be called a good example. b) If he can't do anything right it's probably best that he do nothing. c) The Israelis, surrounded by three standing armies, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians as a group, created to destroy them, funded and promoted by external sources for that purpose, did not over-react to anything, as events have pretty fully supported.

But, you are right in that it would be far better for us to have a better person in charge whose good example could bring calm and light to the circumstances.

The national security gap for Democrats first appeared in polls....

I was alive back then, and like Kevin, I was rapidly gaining on draft age. No one, no one I knew in my small Ohio town was saying, "we need to stay longer and whip those gooks." It was more like, "God this is a f*cked up mess, end it."

The so called security gap was nothing more than the result of a billiant stategy of name calling and strawman fallocies hoisted upon the public by Nixon and other repugs. A divided Democratic party never fought back so the charges stuck, but that need not be the template for the future.

Hey, I just realized that "Al" is short for "Al Qaeda". That explains a lot.

Kevin, how in the hell do Democrats present a plan for winning a war that is unwinnable? Bush has painted Dems and himself into a corner in Iraq. They're both standing there, backs against the wall, looking at a wet floor with the nearest exit unreachable. It would serve Republicans right if they won in '08 for they'll inherit the biggest steaming pile-o-shit bequeathed a victor in many years. The Dems win and the crash and burn will be their fault, with Rove, Kristol, Fox News and others convincing the public victory was in sight before President(D) fucked it all up. Right now our best hope is Iraq blows before '08 so the blame falls squarely where it should. If Bush prolongs it longer than that he is off the hook, eluding blame and consequences just as he did at Harken, Arbusto and Spectrum7.

N.Wells:

Is that the report on John Conyers misappropriating federal resources and staff for personal reasons, or the one for impeachment of Bush held in someone's basement?

Gregory,

Yes, with no friction. We need to help them stop the civil war. Adding more friction isn't going to help. It's inevitable they will end up as three countries. How to do it as painlessly as possible is the whole point.

cld writes in from la-la land: c) The Israelis, surrounded by three standing armies, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians as a group, created to destroy them, funded and promoted by external sources for that purpose, did not over-react to anything, as events have pretty fully supported.

Of course they did, as the smoking ruin of Lebanon's political and civil infrastructure, not to mention hundreds of dead Lebanese civilians -- not to mention the, in retrospect, utterly embarrassing chest-thumping boasts about destroying Hezbollah attest.

b) If [Bush] can't do anything right it's probably best that he do nothing.

I note with interest that cld has internalized Bush's utterly dishonest false choice between his own foolish proposals and "doing nothing."

But, you are right in that it would be far better for us to have a better person in charge whose good example could bring calm and light to the circumstances.

I'd settle for a competent person.

Thomas,

She's so much more one of the guys than Tricky Dick, who looks like he just wandered by and --oh dear god, is he pinching her butt?!

I was alive back then, and like Kevin, I was rapidly gaining on draft age. No one, no one I knew in my small Ohio town was saying, "we need to stay longer and whip those gooks." It was more like, "God this is a f*cked up mess, end it." The so called security gap was nothing more than the result of a billiant stategy of name calling and strawman fallocies hoisted upon the public by Nixon and other repugs. A divided Democratic party never fought back so the charges stuck, but that need not be the template for the future.

In fact, back in '76 Bob Dole was running for President denouncing "Democrat [sic] wars," i.e painting the Democrats as the bloodthirsty warmongers in contrast to the serene and gentle Republicans. It wasn't really until the Reagan-era 1980s that this whole "Republicans are strong on defense" myth was invented -- and that was primarily because Republicans were strong on defense spending as a bribe to their corporate base.

I deny everything! I just posted this update on TPMCafe:

My comments on Vietnam have been interpreted, both in comments and by Kevin Drum, as a dismissal of the entire argument that Democrat's perceived weakness was a problem. It was a problem. When I said that I didn't think the history of the politics of Vietnam should be reduced to the 1972 election, that doesn't mean I'm writing the 1972 election out of history. It was one event, one factor. And there is no doubt that McGovern's "Come Home America" brand of liberal isolationism was not appealing, just as "a broadly dovish foreign policy" would not be politically successful or wise now. I am all for -- really all for -- Wesley Clark's prescription for engagement and Peter Beinart's and Joe Biden's and George Soros's. It is a call to engage the world with all of our power, soft power as well as hard.

But in the face of a war that was a huge mistake, that approach is also entirely compatible with an anti-war movement, some branches of which might be dovish and others more in the Clark/Friedman/Broder wing. An anti-war movement will have its J. William Fulbrights as well as its Abbie Hoffman's.

My only point is that the Vietnam analogy is as flawed as the Munich analogy because Vietnam broke up the Democratic coalition for particular reasons, because Dems bore first responsibility for the war. To say that "Dems were identified with the anti-war movement and therefore lost, therefore Dems should avoid the anti-war movement today" is flawed both in its premise and its conclusion.

Peter Beinart's book, which I've been critical of in other respects, covers the full scope of this history fairly well, particularly in resuscitating figures like Allard Lowenstein who were part of the anti-war movement but not "broadly dovish."

cld writes in from la-la land: Yes, with no friction.

"No friction" is simply no longer an option. You can no more wish away the rampant violence in Iraq than you can Israel's targeting Lebanese civilians.

We need to help them stop the civil war.

Given that Bush's incompetence was instrumental in causing the civil war, it's astonishing that you'd consider such a possibility, at least under the current Administration. But if you have a bright idea about how we could "help them stop the civil war," I'm sure it'd be amusing to hear it.

Adding more friction isn't going to help.

Ah, more friction. So you admit that splitting Iraq "without friction" is impossible, since there's already, in your charming parlance, "friction." Thanks for clarifying.

cld:

We will have to agree to disagree then.

Gregory, who's previous deep thoughts have included insisting that roads, bridges, airports, fuel and geography have no military significance whatsoever, cannot read anything I write without re-writing it backward.

Hezbollah has been shown to have the military capacity of a regular standing unit of the Syrian or Iranian armies, which by itself justifies their response.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1154728213979&call_pageid=968332188854

This is why the Democratic response to Iraq is so important. "Withdraw from Iraq" may be popular, but it's very unlikely that this means the American public is ready to support a broadly dovish foreign policy. At least, it never has in the past.

Er, what? Through most of the past, the US public has, in fact, supported a broadly dovish foreign policy even in the face of rather clear, real gathering threats; the exceptions to that have required pretty substantial propaganda efforts to get going, or actual attacks on the US.

So, I'd have to disagree, unless "never" means "always".

But there's an alternative: persuading the American public that there's a different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism, one that relies more on economic engagement and public diplomacy and less on mid-20th century notions of fighting wars against uniformed armies.

Considering that it is rather self-evident that applying what are, to be fair, late 20th century ideas about fighting wars with nation-states hasn't

Unfortunately, most Dems don't know how to do this, and their prescriptions end up sounding mushy and unconvincing.

The theory that it was McGovern's antiwar stance that was responsible for defeat and a perception of weak national security dems is simplistic and like most simplistic theories - crap. (Therefore it should have a wide appeal to the msm pundits.)

An overlooked factor is that McGovern, although a wholly decent person, was perceived as weak. He didn't project a strong personality. He has a warbly timbre to his voice. The VP debacle didn't help.

When a really strong, stalwart personality like Murtha takes on the warmongers the republicans have a problem. Why else are the republicans so afraid of him?

Sometimes it's the messenger and not the message.

Tony Zinni lays out an approach that I think most Democrats would agree with in his book, The Battle for Peace.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1403971749/sr=1-1/qid=1154979546/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2281870-5150433?ie=UTF8&s=books

Zinni is a career Marine who rose from a 2nd Lt. in Viet Nam to Commander in Chief of CENTCOM before he retired in 2000. He argued against the Iraq invasion before it took place, and a quote from his 2004 book, Battle Ready, shows his anger at what the current administration has done:

"In the lead-up to the Iraq War and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

He is less political than Wes Clark and he's not running for anything.

His books explain how his views were informed by his experiences and he has had many relevant experiences. I think he comes across as realistic, but he gives me more hope for the long-run than anyone else who I've read. I think the Dems should be embracing his approach and citing his writings enthusiastically.

Nice to have commenter Al, so we know what's in Rove's daily email.

Ds can't do anything that will work. Withdrawing from a losing war just can't be done without damage to self, and without getting blamed for all the damage the war and its loss have caused.

Many reason why. One of my favorites is discussed in War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges. All the heroism--think of all the literature over the centuries from Iliad to the present. Petty concerns of daily life eliminated. Banding together in a common cause. War fills all the large empty spiritual places. (Ever notice that war & religion often go together, indicating that God is not enough spiritual reward for people.) But war is hell, so it is followed by amnesia. No one asks a vet what the experience was like and vets don't offer to tell. Losing a war is a stronger reason for amnesia. That's why it's so easy to swiftboat Vietnam vets. It allows us to pretend that it was their fault.

So no D, even if there were any competent ones around, could do it. But the alternatives are worse. So some one must sacrifice himself, and the nation will have to limp ahead afterwards.

Gregory, who's previous deep thoughts have included insisting that roads, bridges, airports, fuel and geography have no military significance whatsoever

cld, your continued dishonesty in misrepresenting my comments, even more than your continued delusional rants, exempts you from consideration as a serious commentator. Noting that Israel's attack Beirut's cilivan airport, in the context of the IDF's total air superiority, makes the excuse that it was an attack against a military target, as opposed to a terror attack against civilian infrastructure, ring hollow. Noting that roads, bridges, airports, fuel and geography have "military significance" does not magically transform these targets, in each and every case, from civilian targets to military ones.

Your dishonesty and delusions in defending Israel's attacks on Lebanese civilians smacks of the most odious defenders of Hezbollah and their ilk. You've been quick to tag those who point out Israel's folly, and your gaps in logivc and honesty, as Hezbollah sympathizers, but it's you, by your claiming every target Israel strikes as de facto military, and therefore justified, who is adopting the role of an apologist for civilian slaughter. Shame on you.

Hezbollah has been shown to have the military capacity of a regular standing unit of the Syrian or Iranian armies, which by itself justifies their response.

Noting Hezbollah's military capabilities, of course, hardly justifies Israel's targeting of the civilian and political infrasturcture of Lebanon, nor of their many attacks on civilian targets wholly unrelated to Hezbollah (ambulances, cars full of fleeing families, etc.)

I'll break it down for you, cld.

Lebanon's government != Hezbollah
Lebanese civilians != Hezbollah
Lebanese infrastructure != Hezbollah
Beirut Internation Airport != Hezbollah
Hezbollah == Hezbollah

Are we clear?

In sound-bite terms, the Dems should advocate that the key to success in Iraq is to reduce troops on the ground and support the Iraqi government in other ways.

Facile, perhaps, but the voting public would rather hear "to win, bring troops home" instead of "we're losing, bring troops home".

Hezbollah has been shown to have the military capacity of a regular standing unit of the Syrian or Iranian armies, which by itself justifies their response.

How does the first part of the sentence relate to the second? The mere fact that Hezbollah has the strength of an equivalent of a Syrian division does not, by itself, justify any response. Israel may have other perfectly sound reasons for striking at Hezbollah (but not for striking at Lebanon itself) but the above is in no way a justification.

Gregory,

I'll make it clear for you: the whole area of Lebanon isn't half the size of the Battle of the Bulge.

Gregory is the kind of personality who so discreditted the left for thirty years. He has nothing to offer but hate and malice, and has never written anything here that expresses anything more than hate and malice, which is probably why he finds so much sympathy for Islam, one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. Brains of a feather.

Gregory,

did you convert to Islam before or after the twin towers fell?

This is why the Democratic response to Iraq is so important. "Withdraw from Iraq" may be popular, but it's very unlikely that this means the American public is ready to support a broadly dovish foreign policy. At least, it never has in the past.

Stefan: What, never?

Chorus (bellowing loudly): No, never!

Stefan: What, never?

Chorus (rather more softly): Well, hardly ever....

I'll make it clear for you: the whole area of Lebanon isn't half the size of the Battle of the Bulge.

So?

Stefan,

It's a justification if the only reason they exist is to attack Israel in the first place, and having attacked them in the first place, aare discovered to be considerably more powerful and well-equipped than had been believed.

cmdicley, So?

All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

You must understand that:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

In the case of Gaza, the Jew press fabricated a transparently fraudulent story of a "kidnapped" soldier.

In the case of Lebanon, it appears that the Jew press lied about capture of the two soldiers being "cross-border". Well,... it was cross-border alright, but it was the Jew soldiers that had crossed the border. And even if the press didn't lie, the Jews chose to start the Lebanon massacre, plain and simple.

Also see: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/israeli_solders.html

One thing you should know about the whatreallyhappened.com site, is that it is Jew false-opposition. So, what is reported there is somewhat suspect.

Usually, such sites are about damage control and therefore most of what is reported is a sanitized/obfuscated version of what really happened.

I'll make it clear for you: the whole area of Lebanon isn't half the size of the Battle of the Bulge.

So what? This fact justifies Israel's systematic destruction of Lebanon's political and military infrastructure (as opposed to, of course, Hezbollah targets) how? This fact justifies the targeting of cars full of fleeing families how? So what?

Gregory is the kind of personality who so discreditted the left for thirty years.

Someone who alternates between blatant fantasies and flat-out misrepresentations of others' posts has little standing to comment on "discredit."

He has nothing to offer but hate and malice, and has never written anything here that expresses anything more than hate and malice

cld, I defy you to support this statement by reproducing a single post of mine that expresses "hate and malice." Of course, pointing out your own lies, misrepresentations and various falsehoods hardly qualifies.

which is probably why he finds so much sympathy for Islam

Noting, of course, the dishonesty in conflating sympathy for Islam with sympatny for Islamic terrorists -- news flash, cld, the two aren't synonymous -- I similarly defy you to point to a single post of mine that, indeed, expresses sympanthy to Islam, let alone Islamic terrorism.

Another news flash, cld -- criticizing Israel's senseless and counterproductive destruction of Lebanon is not giving a free pass to Hezbollah or any other terrorist group. Giving Israel a free pass while condemning Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, smacks of hypocrisy.

one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived.

cld, your characterization of Islam removes you from the realm of sensible commentator to the right-wing talk radio looney bin. Again, when you aren't posting outright lies you retreat into fantasies bearing little relation to the real world. Sad, really.

Brains of a feather.

I am, of course, amused at the projection required for you to type this sentence.

did you convert to Islam before or after the twin towers fell?

Thank you, cld, for continuing your baseless ad hominem equating criticism of Israel's senseless destruction of human lives for support for Islamic terrorism. It's always a help to me when your delusion and dishonesty are on such prominent display; it saves me the trouble of reminding those who might be unaware of your record when you display it for me.

For a start on this, see Wes Clark's "Broken Engagement" from our May 2004 issue.

He also had a book out in 2003 that discussed how we could go about "Winning Modern War".

Polls are all over the place on this because people do want to leave, they just don't know the best way to go about leaving. A minority want immediate withdrawal, but more want withdrawal in a Friedman or so. But ask these people in six months and they'll probably say the same thing.

The key point here is what Kevin called "cognitive dissonance." Iraq is like Vietnam in this regard: in both cases, we got ourselves into a situation with no honorable way out. We either stay in an unwinnable war with Americans dying for a cause no one can articulate, while the locals die in vastly greater numbers; or we withdraw our troops and let the bad guys take over. No politician ever told us that in the 70s, and no politician is going to say it now.

Well, Gregory, if it's "baseless", you are not Muslim?

Another "...different and more effective way to fight radical jihadism" would be to actually go after the leaders of radical jihadism. You know, guys like Osama and Mullah Omar.

Dems could point out that George hasn't managed to catch them "dead or alive".

All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

Ah...I thought he/she/it kept harping on this irrelevant factoid to imply that, gosh darn it, Lebanon is just too small for the Israelis to avoid hitting civilians when shooting at Hezbollah. But now we see cld's logic: the entirety of Lebanon is a military target, so anything Israel attacks is by definition a military target.

Deluded and contrafactual, of course, but at least consistent.

But here's another news flash, cld: "All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort"? No, it doesn't. Lebanon is not Hezbollah; Hezbollah is not Lebanon. I'd suggest that you're confused, but we know by now that it's something much more pathological.

Speaking of pathalogical, slim/watcher/etc. kindly take your cut-and-paste anti-Semitic bullshit and stick it, please. Thanks in advance.

By the way, cld, I await either your providing posts of mine that fit your characterization or your abject apology. Put up or shut up.

I read AL's post somewhere else almost word for word written by someone else.Amazing

cld: All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

You are endorsing Osama Bin Laden's rationale for attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

It seems that your only objection to those attacks is that they did it, and not "us".

Fuck it, Killem all.

What do you call a bunch of people who destroy a whole nation on the basis of two soldiers being taken captive.

What do you call a bunch of people who murder civilians in their hundreds, going on thousands, in a preplanned attack.

You call them EVIL NAZI JEWS.

The Republicans embrace an Endless War in Iraq because they need the war for their power. Their perceived strength on national security issues is their only remaining strong suit. So, they'll cling to their war like a moth to a bug-zapper. They have no choice.

Gregory, I defy you to support this statement by reproducing a single post of mine that expresses "hate and malice."

Well I would defy you to point to one that doesn't.

Well I would defy you to point to one that doesn't.

Shall I take that as an admission of failure, cld? My challenge stands, but I'm happy to take you up on yours...oh, say, this one:

Ah...I thought he/she/it kept harping on this irrelevant factoid to imply that, gosh darn it, Lebanon is just too small for the Israelis to avoid hitting civilians when shooting at Hezbollah. But now we see cld's logic: the entirety of Lebanon is a military target, so anything Israel attacks is by definition a military target.

Deluded and contrafactual, of course, but at least consistent.

But here's another news flash, cld: "All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort"? No, it doesn't. Lebanon is not Hezbollah; Hezbollah is not Lebanon. I'd suggest that you're confused, but we know by now that it's something much more pathological.

Speaking of pathalogical, slim/watcher/etc. kindly take your cut-and-paste anti-Semitic bullshit and stick it, please. Thanks in advance.

By the way, cld, I await either your providing posts of mine that fit your characterization or your abject apology. Put up or shut up.

By the way, cld, I still await either your providing posts of mine that fit your characterization or your abject apology. Put up or shut up.

Oh, and Slim, thanks for keeping this discussion from getting, you know, too "intellectual." Nothing like an anti-semite to add spice to the conversation.

Gregory,

Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

It's the Islamic world that continues to justify slavery to this very day,

http://www.averroes-foundation.org/articles/sex_slavery.html

(The author is a Muslim.)

It's a justification if the only reason they exist is to attack Israel in the first place, and having attacked them in the first place, aare discovered to be considerably more powerful and well-equipped than had been believed.

Note the "if." However, back in the real world the only reason Hezbollah exists is not solely to attack Israel -- Hezbollah began in the early 1980s as an alliance of Shiite groups opposed to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, i.e. not to attack Israel but to drive Israel out of their country. While Hezbollah continues to attack Israel, (in large part for the increased stature such attacks give Hezbollah in the Middle East) its main activities are targeted towards establishing a Shiite theocracy in the south of Lebanon.

Moreover, the above quote doesn't even make sense. The justification to attack Hezbollah is because they are militarily more powerful than thought, even though this fact was not discovered until after the invasion that this supposedly was the justification for?

SecularAnimist,

binLaden's rationale for attacking the World Trade Center is that it was the world headquarters of the international conspiracy to dominate the universe.

Arabs were going on about this as early as the early 1980s, when I first heard them talking about it.

Please don't mention Wesson Oil Clark while readers might be eating.

cld: which is probably why he finds so much sympathy for Islam, one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived.

Well, it's official: cld has revealed himself to be of the raving lunatic bigot school.

Gregory:

Your post on August 7, 2006 at 4:53 PM exhibits "hate and malice". Now, are you Muslim or not?

Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived.

Here's a hint, cld: When challenged on an assertion, simply repeating the assertion is not exactly convincing.

It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

And the Christian world that perpetuated it. To say nothing of the various traditions of slavery throughout the world. So what?

It's the Islamic world that continues to justify slavery to this very day

Do you really need me to point out how dishonest it is to represent the opinion of one Muslim author as "the Islamic world"? And again, if memory serves me right, the fine Christian men of the Confederacy were not short on their own justifications for slavery.

And moreover, I need hardly remind you that slavery is far from the only evil afoot in the world. After all, you continue to justify the killing of civilians by the Israeli military and the IDF's destruction of civilian targets. No one here, to my knowledge, is justifying the killing of cibvilins by Muslim extremists, but you go on insisting that the Israelis are right in their actions. I, of course, disagree, and I suggest that if you're going to look for someone advocating evil, cld, get a mirror.

Islam is one of the foremost expressions of hate and malice ever conceived. It was the Islamic world that gave us African slavery.

Which slave trade the good Christian Americans were simply too pious and, well, Christian to ever participate in.

Your post on August 7, 2006 at 4:53 PM exhibits "hate and malice".

Only someone as dishonest as you would say so, Charlie.

Iraq is the new (OK not so new anymore) Vietnam, but this is not the 60s.
The Dems ceased being the natural party of government because they were perceived as the party of the breakdown of order. By the 70s, even many people who supported/took part in much of the 60s were nervous about how much had changed how quickly and the sense that we no longer had a clear sense of where we were going.
Most of the country knew that Vietnam had been a mistake but many wanted that mistake dealt with in a way that re-established some order and reliability, not in a way that created more chaos. (And the fact that most of us on the left did not understand that piece made the fear of chaos even greater.)
This showed up in particular in the perception of the Democrats as "soft on crime". That issue combined very real insecurities plus extra fear fanned by intensive media coverage (there was a shift in evening news to all crime all the time) plus residual anti-Black sentiment that could not be expressed openly in those pre-Limbaugh days.
{Aside: The Triple Blade Occam's razor would throw out all this and simply say: The South never forgave the North for abolishing slavery and it never forgave the Democrats for abolishing segregration. Move the Solid South from the Democratic column to the Dixiecrat/Wallace/Rove column and voila.)
The biggest difference between the 60-70s and now is that then people were trying to repair perceived disorder, but now the problem is misorder.
Whoever can show the nation how to generate more good jobs in America and get us out of the long-term energy pinch will be the next natural party of government.

It's the Islamic world that continues to justify slavery to this very day,

I think you are confusing "the Islamic world" with "Jack Abramoff and the Republican Party".

Well, it's official: cld has revealed himself to be of the raving lunatic bigot school.

To be fair, Stefan, cld has long since asserted his raving lunatic status (for example: "binLaden's rationale for attacking the World Trade Center is that it was the world headquarters of the international conspiracy to dominate the universe" ... um, no; bin Laden justified it as -- surprise -- infrasturcture that supports the US's hegemony). It's simply the bigotry that's new.

cld: All the infrastructure inherently supports the military effort.

And all the infrastructure in Israel inherently supports the Israeli military effort -- in fact, even more so than in Lebanon, since most non-ultra-Orthodox Israelis are in the active military and/or reserves. If you accept this reasoning, then, it's perfectly justified for Hezbollah to shoot its rockets anywhere in Israel at all.

By the way Juan Cole is also Jew false-opposition.

I have posted the article Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit) three times to "Informed" Comment and none have been published.

So much Jew false-opposition,... no wonder Americans (in particular) are so deceived.

Who would have thought Juan Cole was a Jew operative?

Gregory:

I'm not "Charlie" (more evidence of your malice) but since you repeatedly ignored my question, I will have to assume you are Muslim.

I'm not "Charlie"

More evidence of your dishoensty. It takes more than blockquote tags to disguise your verbal tics. ;)

but since you repeatedly ignored my question

I thought you were the advocate of ignore lists, Charlie?

I will have to assume you are Muslim.

Assume all you like -- it'll have no more grounding in reality than any of your other assumptions. ;)

Stefan,

Hezbollah was organized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for the purpose of carrying on the struggle against Israel. What they did to make themselves popular is simply in support of that.

from The Hizbollah Program, 1985

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/Hiz_letter.htm

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel (See ICT Note)
We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Gregory:

No need to get hostile. For the record, I have pointed out the "hate and malice" in Watcher/slim's posts, as well as Red State Mike's post about Kerry's military service. Using your logic, then, I am an anti-Semite and the juinor Senator from Massachusetts as well?

Charlie Lawrence posting as "Thomas" wrote: I'm not "Charlie" (more evidence of your malice)

Yes, you are Charlie. More evidence of your dishonesty and cowardice.

No need to get hostile. </