Mr. Negativity
Sorry for the dismissive tone in the previous item and others. The problem is that all of the “What Should We Do Now?” proposals that I’ve seen suck. I still favor a timed withdrawal, but I recognize that it sucks too - in the sense that the post-withdrawal situation is bad to dire.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
August 28, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
This is sort of old news at this blog at this point. Why not just assume that the war is lost and focus on what we can do to handle the aftermath? It’s not like we have any control over the conduct of the war in any case, but we do possibly have some influence over what happens afterwards. That’s what the right wing is working on now; everyone important on their side has clearly given up on the war.
.
Yes, the available options suck. We knew that from the moment that the Bush administration launched this war. But the options don’t suck for *them*; they’ve gained power by using the war and plan to continue in the aftermath, through backstab theories, terrorism threats (which will be greater once we’ve actually lost) as an excuse for promoting fear and heightening internal security, and through the generally greater control that will seem to be needed.
.
Just imagine what Josh Trevino, say, will be writing at the end of the war. Will he have any conciousness that he was wrong? No, never. Instead it’ll be rage and the supposedly reluctant necessity to come down hard on internal dissent.
.
What I’d like to see is more historical case studies on how democracies have handled the loss of wars and what happened after. I’d guess that losing a war of choice rarely leads to a rejection of the militarism that led to the war in the first place.
Comment by Nell —
August 29, 2005 @ 2:46 am
Rich Puchalsky: I’d guess that losing a war of choice rarely leads to a rejection of the militarism that led to the war in the first place.
Argentina is a semi-encouraging data point.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 29, 2005 @ 8:32 am
Here’s my proposal, and it will WORK. We will both win, and get out of Iraq within 24 months.
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
August 29, 2005 @ 8:53 am
Yeah, I’m sure that the Bush administration will be getting right back to you about that, Hesiod. They’re always looking for ideas.
.
I’ve never understood the naive “I have a plan!” style blogging. Plans are easy. What’s important is power. I remember early in the war how Kevin Drum was blogging about what the best plan for dividing Iraq’s oil revenues would be. What a paternalistic waste of time. In the long term, the political players in Iraq are going to be the ones dividing up the oil revenues. In the short term, the people in control are Bush ideologues and Iraqi insurgents.
.
The only thing that we really need a plan about is how we are going to affect, as individual activists and as part of a movement, the political situation in the U.S.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 29, 2005 @ 9:33 am
“Yeah, I’m sure that the Bush administration will be getting right back to you about that, Hesiod. They’re always looking for ideas.”
I’m not holding my breath on that one. I am proposing this idea as a means of uniting the Democratic party around a single Iraq strategy. I think it sufficiently placates the “get out ASAP” crowd and the “Failure in Iraq is not an option” crowds to be successful in that regard.
I have no illusions taht the policy will never be implemented. It’s just a startegy that we should be pushing for political reasons if nothing else.
Comment by Anodyne —
August 29, 2005 @ 11:41 am
Rich
.
“I’d guess that losing a war of choice rarely leads to a rejection of the militarism that led to the war in the first place.”
.
I have no suggestions for what to do next in Iraq, but I’ll go out on a limb and suggest a remedy for the problem you have identified. Exile. That’s right, exile. If a war starts on a president’s watch – whether or not he/she started it - and he/she hasn’t won it or generated the general impression that it is being won by the end their final term, then the President, the Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, and the Senate and House major and minority leaders in place must go into permanent exile on a very uncomfortable island. No exceptions, no mitigating circumstances. I have detailed manual of procedures and protocols available upon request.
Comment by Anodyne —
August 29, 2005 @ 11:58 am
Oops, left the VP off the list.
Comment by Nell —
August 29, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
Anodyne, I like the, um, boldness of your proposal. But I’d settle for requiring that all wars be declared by Congress. Once public campaign funding is in place (or something similar that gets the hogs out of the legislative creek).
Comment by baroose —
August 29, 2005 @ 1:08 pm
Forgive my naivete, but isn’t “all wars be declared by Congress” what that quaint little document in the National Archives mandates? In that case, put me in the “yes” column.
Comment by Anodyne —
August 29, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
Nell
.
Bold? Really? I’m flattered. I thought the proposal, which at first blush seems a little exotic, might have struck some as not bold enough. There are some practical implementation problems related to the legal definition of a war, assessment of its status at the end of term, and enforcement mechanisms, but they don’t seem insurmountable.
.
Consider some of the incentive alignment effects on issues of military readiness, use of diplomacy, bargaining, reliance on and changes in international law, the development of intelligence and countermeasure capabilities, the way in which information is gathered and used for policy decisions, firming up public opinion (one way or the other) during time of war, maintaining civil liberties, etc. And don’t forget the possibility of some darn good court reality television if things go south. The buck still stops at the president and the advice and consent role remains with congress.
.
The proposal doesn’t assume that “war” or “no war” is the steady state equilibrium solution. It seems like an idea that both right wingers and left wingers could learn to love and even a few libertarians could learn to live with. It comes down to the ex ante salutary effects of accountability mechanisms and might get us a bit closer to actualizing the notion of “consent of the governed” with respect to the decision to declare a war (even a war of abstraction). The method has been used a few times through history and I haven’t seen an argument why it would be incompatible with the principles of classical liberal republic, but I understand that your mileage may vary.
Comment by matthew hogan —
August 29, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
There must be 50 ways to leave your quagmire. Just slip out the back, Jack, make a new plan Stan, don’t need to be coy, Roy, just listen to me.
Comment by Anodyne —
August 29, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
But if you hop off the bus gus, you don’t need to discuss much, then where would we be, Lee, with hands and time free?
Comment by matthew hogan —
August 30, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
No longer on a bridge over troubled water.