Happy Presidents' Day - "War, Pestilence, Famine"

Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate "war, pestilence, and famine" than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay- at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion.

-- from the Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant
(18th president of the United States)

Comments

[Ghost Dansing]

So I guess this is supposed to vindicate Republican incompetence in the selection and prosecution of the Iraq war Jeremayakovka? Not so easy..... this is America where citizens question the government and hold leaders accountable.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

[JMK]

Thanks for the quote, but not so fast yourself either. Show me Democrats who criticize because they want to secure Iraq, because they grant the merits for taking out Saddam, for qualitatively improving American influence in that region.

[Ghost Dansing]

Hmmmm.... I don't think Iraq is going to be "secure" in your lifetime.... We "They" are going to have to come up with some other strongman to take Saddam's place.... we are backing Sunni militias and even encouraging the Shia/Iran associated/Central government to allow Baathists back in to govern.

Meanwhile, Iraq is now an incubator for exactly the kind of extremist activity we were supposedly confronting.

I'm afraid Iraq was a case of wildly charging off in the wrong direction, and then even if you think it was the "right thing to do", poorly executed requiring the 400-500K troops General Shinseki recommended but denied by the Republican administration.

To do Iraq right, it would have been best to be under the UN flag with 400-500k U.S. Troops and perhaps 2-300 more European troops squeezing from the North and South. Of course it would have been good to have Turkey as our ally and the whole thing should have become a UN protectorate until a reasonable government could be stood up.

The case for war with Iraq had everything to do with violations of UN sanctions after they were driven out of Kuwait, and nothing to do with al qaeda or other sunni islamic extremists that attacked us on 9/11.

I'm not a dove at all..... the sheer incompetence of the Republican leadership makes me want to vomit..... but I'll simply do my patriotic duty, criticize and throw the bums and their decadent, rightist political party out of office.

[JMK]

GD, there are elements of reason in your points, but they held up to examination they are isolated and do not lend themselves toward a solution.

E.g., even if the UN had contributed troops to the project, there would have been foreseeable difficulties about coordinating commands and duties. (I'm not saying there wouldn't have been benefits, just that the "UN" label doesn't guarantee results.)

W/ or w/o the UN, why haven't Arab nations donate their forces for policing and antiterror efforts? Why not support their "Arab brothers" build a better life in Iraq? You'd think as Sunnis they'd want to protect the Sunni (now a) minority in Iraq. But no. Why? In part because the Bush Administration failed to persuade other governments that the US-led effort was worth joining. But it's not like "antiwar" Americans would have wanted to see such cooperation occur. They (you?) just want to compare Bush to Hitler and denounce this "imperial" war.

Come on: try to prove any Democrat - save for the ex-Democrat Joe Lieberman - would have made a smarter pro-war case, and not merely an "antiwar" one.

[Ghost Dansing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxEodEAbMAI&NR=1#

Actually, Dubya and Republicans built on the case and rhetoric made by the Clinton administration making "Regime Removal" the U.S. Policy toward Iraq.

Albright said she understood the "why" had been saying it longer that the Republican administration.... but see the video....

Cheney, by the way, was lobbying for sanctions to be lifted during the Clinton administration because it would make oil trade easier.

It was not at all that a Democratic administration wouldn't move for war against Iraq under the right circumstances. The case was already made.

The point was and is that a Democratic administration would have seen Afghanistan and success against al qaeda and the taliban as priorities, they viewed the sanctions, northern and southern no-fly, no-drive zones as having hobbled Saddam's regime, they would have proceeded under UN auspices, checking all the blocks like Dubya's daddy did in the first Gulf war, and they would have anticipated the problems that would exist after an invasion. They would have taken the advice of the senior Military and Diplomatic leadership and experts and would have mitigated risk to troops. They certainly would not have broken with American tradition and international law to pursue preemption and unilateral invasion..... not on the cards involved with the Iraq case anyway.

As many Republicans do, you seem to view the Democrats as a monolithic lock-step political machine like the Republican Party. The Democrats governed Center Right, and Madelaine Albright was downright hawkish for a SECSTATE.

You are complaining about the pacifistic language of the opposition, some of which are Democrats, some are not.

The reality is that the use of military force is sometimes a necessity. Because Dubya and his clowns violated every rule and prosecuted so badly, the case for military action in the future, when we might sorely need it, will be that much harder to make.

It took decades to overcome the "Vietnam Syndrome".

That pacifistic and isolationist banter is not exclusive to the Democratic Party either..... the Republicans sounded the same way during Clinton's 8 years. By 2000, if you recall, Dubya was quite the "non-interventionist" in his campaign rhetoric implying the Clinton administration's hawkishness in the Balkans was misguided.

The real litmus is that the original problem, Islamic extremists in South Asia remains the original problem..... this Republican administration has on the whole been ineffective and incompetent in addressing the threat that produced 9/11.

[JMK]

In the mid 90s Cheney was representing the interests of Halliburton. True, but irrelevant. It's no secret, either - the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes documents it in his recent biography, "Cheney." That the Bush Administration "violated every rule and prosecuted so badly" is an exaggeration. For one thing, you ignore the massive corruption undertaken by governments and individuals during the oil-for-food truce which permitted Saddam to remain in power. Remember the massive malnutrition and death-by-starvation of hundreds of thousands of children during the 90s? They're the true victims of these caustic exchanges between "pro-" and "antiwar" types like you and me.

Did you know that I voted for John Kerry in 2004? On the wing + a prayer that his administration would prosecute the war more effectively. From cautiously pessimistic about the invasion in 2003, I became, while reading "neoconservative" arguments, cautiously optimistic about its purpose and prospects.

But Kerry lost. Before and since 2004 the engine of Democratic Party activism, and most of its officials' statements has been "bring the troops home," "redeploy," etc.

The "reality" is that abandoning Iraq would be a disaster - both for the region and for America's interests and its much-bemoaned "reputation." The Democrats offer NO winning strategy for Iraq. If you think Democrats should have one, you would do best to focus your energies on that.

* * *
btw, as for the Grant quote specifically, he was writing about an American civil war that was military. Today's American civil war - and it is a civil war - is cultural. So the people I hoped to provoke by it, mostly, are cultural left.

[Jason Lee Jones]

"Actually, Dubya and Republicans built on the case and rhetoric made by the Clinton administration making "Regime Removal" the U.S. Policy toward Iraq."

Hey now - Don't forget JMK how adamant I was about how stupid it all was. Mister BHO was equally so except he had a podium and a camera in his face. The "Establishment" of both parties can often be hard to differentiate. This is one of those "why Obama" things I like most - not the "Party-guy."

[JMK]

It was more than rhetoric, Jason. It conformed to UN resolutions, as much as they could be counted on to govern, or police, the post-91 situation. That was, or seemed, the daring change Bush proposed post-9/11: enough with pussyfooting re his dictatorship, time to be done with it.

[JMK]

In any case, it's valuable to discuss these nuances (to not slip into being vociferously in one or another camp).