2008 Woodie Awards
I think it’s important that I respond to a few of the comments that Asheesh made in his last posting regarding the Daily Prince’s editorial about the justification for the war in Iraq. Besides the fact that I don’t think ad hominem attacks criticizing the intelligence of other writers (see the title of Asheesh’s article) are particularly conducive to political debate, I think that Jeremy Golubcow-Teglasi’s point is not without merit.
I took Golubcow-Teglasi’s argument generally to be that just because the Bush Administration has publicly justified the US’ war in Iraq doesn’t necessarily mean that their new justification is actually wrong. Golubcow-Teglasi is attempting to separate the question “Did the Bush Administration improperly change their defense of the Iraq war?” (it sounds like he would respond that it did) from a totally separate question, “Is this new justification actually valid?” Golubcow-Teglasi is pointing out that while the methods the Bush administration is using to sell the Iraq war to the American people are extremely suspect, that doesn’t mean the justification doesn’t have some merit. He writes, “Isn’t it theoretically possible that there are good reasons for continuing the fight in Iraq, even if the intelligence that led us to war was flawed?” He then goes on to argue that those opposed to the war in Iraq ought not to just point out the shifting justification for the policy, but should also engage in the substantive claims the White House is making about why we supposedly needed to invade Iraq. Would democratization decrease the level of terrorism against he US? Can the US actually export democracy to the rest of the world through military means? And assuming we can, should we? These are important questions that anti-war writers can’t just shrug off and claim that we don’t have to talk about it.
Asheesh claims that Golubcow-Teglasi is apologizing for the White House’s shifting justification, which simply isn’t the case. After pointing out the costs both in resources and in American and Iraqi lives of the war in Iraq, Asheesh states, “and yet somehow it’s okay to overlook that fact [that the Bush administration lied in its justification to go to war] when an administration official comes to discuss its foreign policy strategy?” But Golubcow-Teglasi isn’t claiming that we shouldn’t discuss the Bush administration’s shift in position. He is only claiming that in addition to discussing the seeming deception of the Bush administration, we should also discuss the merits of the position it defends now. These two discussions aren’t mutually exclusive, and I think both are important in discussing the Bush administration’s foreign policy.
To give Asheesh credit, he then does go on to tackle some of the substantive issues, including the claim that this war will reduce anti-American sentiment and international terrorism. His implication that Golubcow-Teglasi enjoys Muslim hatred of Americans, however, (”Then again, perhaps Golubcow-Teglasi gets some twisted pleasure out of the persistence of Muslim anger at Americans- hey, it gives him material to write more lunkheaded op-ed columns”) is unfounded and inappropriate—he ought to restrict his comments to the substance of other writers’ work, and not on their personal character, however flawed he may find them to be.
Finally, I don’t think Asheesh’s gross generalization that “Princeton students are completely disconnected from the costs this war has exacted upon thousands of American families” is warranted simply because he disagrees with one op-ed column in The Daily Prince. But regardless, I do think it’s important to point out that on the substantive issues, I wholeheartedly agree with Asheesh: the Bush Administration’s current justification for its foreign policy is logistically impossible and indefensible. Refuting Bush’s justifications for the war should be our next intellectual project.
Writing in the WP:
The American people are rapidly losing patience with the mounting casualties and costs while Iraqis squabble among themselves over their future. The administration should tell Iraqis that if they do not reach a political settlement by year’s end, we will consider a timetable for our withdrawal.
Joementum he is not.
A Department of Defense report finds that the Iraq war substantially delayed the Katrina relief effort:
The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness … Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States.
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe their government was wrong to take military action against Iraq, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News. 50 per cent of respondents think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq.
From WaPo:
Shiites and Kurds were sending a draft constitution to parliament on Monday that would fundamentally change Iraq, transforming the country into a loose federation, with a weak central administration governed by Islamic law . . .
The draft, slated for action by a Monday deadline, would be a sweeping rejection of the demands of Iraq’s disaffected Sunni minority, which has called the proposed federal system the start of the breakup of Iraq. Shiites and Kurds indicated they were in no mood to compromise . . . .
The draft also stipulates that Iraq is an Islamic state and that no law can contradict the principles of Islam, Shiite and Kurdish negotiators said. Opponents have charged that last provision would subject Iraqis to religious edicts by individual clerics.
The Shiite and Kurdish negotiators also said draft calls for the presence of Islamic clerics on the court that would interpret the constitution. Family matters such as divorce, marriage or inheritance would be decided either by religious law or civil law as an individual chooses — a condition that opponents say would likely lead to women being forced into unfavorable rulings for them by opponents demanding judgments under Islamic law.
Please, enlighten me, hawks.
Today’s NYT op-ed on Cindy Sheehan says so much by trying to say so little. The paper should be applaud both for drawing attention to Ms. Sheehan’s story and for highlighting the Administration’s betrayal of America’s armed forces and of military families. But asking that Americans sacrificing more (we could start by repealing the President’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans), while good, obfuscates the point that should be made about Iraq. Matt nails it today: we need to set a timetable for an expeditious withdrawal. Extricating ourselves from what was the “wrong war” to begin with is both the best thing for our military and the best option for enhancing our national security.
Nevertheless, it’s significant when the nation’s paper-of-record weighs in like this, and clearly shows that Ms. Sheehan’s protest has effectively drawnn attention to the urgency of the situation in Iraq. If the President won’t be convinced by Ms. Sheehan and the majority of Americans who share her view that the Administration’s Iraq policy has failed, perhaps he’ll pay attention now that the most influential opinion-makers are lining up against him.
The blogosphere is rife with calls for the troops in Iraq to withdraw. People want a date, they want a timetable, they want to get the hell out.
So, while I don’t believe that setting a timetable will embolden the insurgents, it still makes me nervous - because it reminds me of what we did in Somalia in the early 1990s. Of course, there’s very little practical resemblance between the two military actions - but what they have in common is that a very vocal, demanding public and Congress called for an absolute date of withdrawal of troops. In our haste to get out of Somalia on that certain day in March, we completely failed to develop a workable withdrawal scenario - which left the understaffed and under prepared U.N. in the middle of a veritable civil war.
Considering the Bush Administration’s indifference (or naiveté) to long-range planning as expressed in the Downing Street Memo, I do not have high hopes for any transition plan they may develop. So, while Ariana Huffington spends her daily blog space crying, “It’s Iraq, stupid,” I wish our public voices on the left were expressing more than some vague assertion that U.S troops leaving Iraq will diminish the chaos in that country. I’d like to see people talking about the obligations we now have to support the development of a country whose infrastructure we’ve effectively destroyed.
So we’re thinking about rewarding the supposedly deaf, dumb, and blind general of Abu Ghraib - Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez - with a high level post in the Pentagon. So not only are the higher-ups in charge of Abu Ghraib not held in any way responsible for their misdeeds, they are bumped up to new and exciting eschelons of Pentagon bureaucracy. Personal responsibility my ass.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
