Is Our Republicans Learning?
Some of them, a little:
The evolving Republican message on the war contrasts with the strong rhetoric used by House and Senate Republicans recently in opposing a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. During a debate last month, Gutknecht intoned, “Members, now is not the time to go wobbly.” This week, he conceded “I guess I didn’t understand the situation,” saying that a partial troop withdrawal now would “send a clear message to the Iraqis that the next step is up to you.”
“If we don’t take the training wheels off, we will be in the same place in six months that we’re in today,” he said.
According to the Post article, Repubs are increasingly down to the real last refuge of scoundrels:
Rank-and file Republicans who once adamantly backed the administration on the war are moving to a two-stage new message, according to some lawmakers. First, Republicans are making it clear to constituents they do not agree with every decision the president has made on Iraq. Then they boil the argument down to two choices: staying and fighting or conceding defeat to a vicious enemy.
This is rather precisely stated for journalism on deadline. The choice isn’t between “staying and fighting” or defeat. We already have the defeat. As I discussed last night, the last presentable war aim – creating a model society to inspire other Arab/Muslim societies – is unattainable now. The choice, as reporters Weisman and Asthana put it, is between staying and “conceding defeat.”
If we stay we can avoid admitting we’ve lost. Not avoid losing. Acknowledging.
How many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians is that worth to us?
Postscript: The unpresentable war aim may remain attainable – quiet Iraq down enough that the US can sustain indefinite basing in the country to intimidate other governments in the region and support attacks against them as necessary. I have my doubts even on this score.
Comment by hj —
July 21, 2006 @ 7:55 am
Know what really sucks about all this war crap? You’re not blogging about Floyd Landis.
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
July 21, 2006 @ 8:13 am
Another demonstration that ”to not appear weak” is both the worst and most frequently used reasons to go to war (or stay in one).
Comment by Leonard —
July 21, 2006 @ 9:11 am
You’ve already forgotten green-lantern warfighting! If we focus our Will, there’s nothing we can’t do. The idea that there are “facts on the ground” outside of our control is poppycock. Show me an inconvenient fact? The correct response is to send the Marines to blow it up.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
July 21, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Jim: I would have argued that the last defensible military aim in Iraq was ”we’ve screwed up so badly that we’ve created the conditions for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and we have a responsibility to prevent that from happening.” But, as the events of the last week show, the pogroms and mass refugee flights have already started — we’ve failed at our last war aim as well.
So it’s a moot point.
Comment by Comandante Agi —
July 21, 2006 @ 10:10 am
These Republicans are flip-floppers!
Comment by Nell —
July 21, 2006 @ 11:18 am
Rank-and file Republicans who once adamantly backed the administration on the war
Once? once??!?
As in, a month ago, when Democrats were being fitted for Zarqawi suits on the floor of both houses of Congress?
Guess that didn’t poll as well as predicted…
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
July 21, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
If we don’t take the training wheels off
I am not a violent person. But this particular metaphor makes me want to punch anyone who uses it. Really, really hard.
“I guess I didn’t understand the situationâ€
When has that ever stopped a Republican?
Comment by abc —
July 21, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
Get ready, Jim, for the chorus from the right blogosophere about how the liberal media and the Democratic Party undercut our troops in Iraq, producing the defeat we now behold. UO will be high on that list of ”Stabbed-us-in-the-backs” Islamophiles!
Comment by Barry —
July 21, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
by Neel Krishnaswami —
”Jim: I would have argued that the last defensible military aim in Iraq was â€we’ve screwed up so badly that we’ve created the conditions for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and we have a responsibility to prevent that from happening.†But, as the events of the last week show, the pogroms and mass refugee flights have already started — we’ve failed at our last war aim as well. ”
I think that the lesson is that, when somebody has lied you into war, anything that they say is not trustworthy. Period.
Comment by Frank —
July 21, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
Neel- I might buy that as a possible American aim if we hadn’t organized much of the ethnic cleansing ourselves. Remember ”letting the Sunni reap the whirlwind” or how about, ”Ambassidor Negroponte”, does ”the El Salvadore option” ring any bells?
Comment by Hesiod —
July 21, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
The unpresentable war aim may remain attainable – quiet Iraq down enough that the US can sustain indefinite basing in the country to intimidate other governments in the region and support attacks against them as necessary. I have my doubts even on this score.
Seems to be working in the case of Israel’s intervention into Lebanon.
Comment by Hesiod —
July 21, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
Oh, and to quote John Kerry:
”How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
Pingback by Alan Sullivan » Persian Peril —
July 23, 2006 @ 8:45 am
[...] for Jimmy Carter’s follies long after his interminable ex-presidency is history. And pace Jim Henley, with the world’s largest economy, the US cannot possibly be so [...]
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
July 23, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Frank, your critique also applies to the create-a-model-democracy idea. I was talking about what a defensible war aim is, not whether the Bush administration is capable of doing the right things for good reasons (it’s not, on either count).