Iraq Is Not Lost…
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in War
But the public is becoming increasingly impatient with the current plan or lack thereof.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Opposition among Americans to the war in Iraq has reached a new high, with only about a third of respondents saying they favor it, according to a poll released Monday.Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it — the highest opposition noted in any CNN poll since the conflict began more than three years ago.
Despite the rising opposition to the war, President Bush said the U.S. will not withdraw from Iraq while he is president.
I don’t favor the war in Iraq, but I do agree with Bush that we shouldn’t withdraw. However, as time goes by, does it make any sense to stay if we aren’t going to deploy more troops and try to do things right? I still think this situation can be saved, and I don’t think we should give up. But if we don’t have the collective will or patience to stick with it, there’s no way it’s going to work. Zero chance.
Still, Iraq is not lost…yet.
This entry was posted on Monday, August 21st, 2006 and is filed under War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:32 am
If you are in favor of the war - you need to get rid of the Bush “team” who are incapable of winning it. If you are not in favor of the war - you need to get rid of the Bush “team” who are incapable of leaving it. This was an elective war in which this administration was given a blank check and blew it left, right, top and bottom. Its seriously time for new leadership in November. My solution? A few very powerful/forceful Republicans work to move their party into a national leadership role (instead of just blaming liberals and democrats for everything to get votes) and for the Dems to gain enough seats in Congress to become a viable opposition party with a vested interest in winning this thing.
We’ve seen the results of six years of Rovian politics. Lets get the hell out of it while we still have a country. Otherwise, you might want to start brushing up on your Mandarin Chinese.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:55 am
Well, I agree that Iraq is not “lost”. I also don’t like the idea of an American withdrawal from Iraq at this point, because of the kind of people I suspect would take over from (and most likely murder the members of) the current government, and because of what I think the likely world wide results of a defeat would be.
(Aside:
I also note that this poll has an irritating feature that I’ve noticed before, namely, that the question is: “Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?” 60% are opposed. That 60% is I think, misleading because (this is the feature that irritates me) it doesn’t ask the crucially important question, “What do you think should be done?” I wonder how many of those 60% are in favor of a US defeat, or a US withdrawal that is a defeat but that we call a victory. My guess is less than half, but I don’t know because they don’t ask that question. End of aside)
I also think that more troops will be needed (wether that means they will be sent is another matter). This has special significance for me, since I may well be deployed to Iraq next year. If the number of American soldiers in Iraq is increased, the chances of me deploying there are increased. I have, therefore, thought a lot about the Iraq war, and troop levels in particular. I don’t really think that changing presidents or administrations will make much difference in this war.
I don’t understand what Eural means by “getting rid” of the Bush team. I predict that the attempt to remove Bush from office will succeed in the next presidential election.
Anyway, Justin, good post. Thanks for your thoughts.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:59 am
While I don’t subscribe to the “Bush is Stupid” meme - his rote message, his annoying Texan parlance, his faux cowboy obstinance, he defiant rat smirk in the face of reality - makes me understand why some people think with have fucking Swing Blade as a Prez.
He kind of reminds my of youngest sister: If she jacks something up beyond recognition (which she regularly does) she get defensive and is unable to admit the reality that sits directly on her face. You can shout and shout: THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE, GET THE KIDS OUT. Her response: It’s only the back side of the house and the firefighters are on the way and if Marlboro would make a cigarette that you could smoke in bed, this wouldn’t be happening right now.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:18 am
I’d agree that we could still win in Iraq, maybe not permenently but at least regain the initiative. But, I keep thinking about the following. Bush’s current strategy can’t and won’t work in Iraq, he is seemingly incapable of changing his strategy significantly and he’ll be the president for 2 more years.
I don’t see how even a dramatic Democrat victory in Oct would improve our situation in Iraq. They’re not going to try and force a more agressive strategy on the Pres. after all. So in 2 years, when we get a new chief executive, will we still have any chance of changing things in Iraq? I doubt it.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:11 am
To stay or not to stay depends on how you define stay. I think an abstract argument can be made that the U.S. has a responsibility to leave the place better than when it first invaded, But two questions need to be addressed. First is it theoretically possible to make things better at this point? I would answer maybe. The second question is whether the administration has the competency to make things better, and the answer is pretty clear to me: No way.
But there is the larger issue of the poker game going on between the U.S. and Iran. This admiiniistraton has been played for the fools they are by Iran.. They got the U.S. through their surrogote Chalabi to get rid of their mortal enemy in Saddam and to set up political institutions that will insure Shi’ite/Iranian domination of Iraqi politics for years to come. It’s a joke, from a U.S. policy objectives point of view. The incompetency, naivete, foolishness is beyond belief. The worst thing that could happen now is for the administration to show their pique as sore losers by lashing out at Iran because they will be raising the ante in a game they have shown themselves incapable of winning–quite apart from the question whether it’s a game that’ we should have gotten into or is worth winning in the first place.
So for me the question is not the abstract: “Do we have a moral responsibility to stay?” In the abstract I would say, “Of course we do.” But we’re not dealing with abstractions here. We’re dealing with the realiity that this administration incapable of making things better and is far more likely to make a bigger mess of things with more tragic loss of life? The answer for me is clear; it’s a no brainer, really.
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Umm. DosPeros, Kevin and Jack ( and Justin, I’m asking): if the next presidential election offers us a choice between someone who will withdraw the US army from Iraq immediately, and someone who will not, how will you vote? I’m sincerely curious. If you prefer not to post your answer you could just email it to me (confidentiality guaranteed for all non-threatening emails).
August 22nd, 2006 at 1:16 pm
the parentheses in the first sentence should have read “and Justin, since I’m asking”. Sorry.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Seb–
I am not for leaving no matter what, and so my answer to your question is: It depends. The first task is simply to take the keys to the car away from these blunderers. That can be achieved to a certain extent by taking away at least one of their majorities in Congress. The second step is for sane Dems together with sane Republicans in Congress to figure out if there is anything, anything, that can be salvaged from this mess.
Maybe there is a case to be made that there is, and that a continued American presence is essential for that to happen. But such a presence probably involves withdrawing most American troops and keeping only a small cadre of counterinsurgency specialists who will work with the current Iraqi government to right its own ship. If and when the situation stablizes, we then have a moral obligation to pay for the damage we’ve done or allowed to be done to Iraqi infrastructure. This is one possible platform for the Dems in ‘08. The other possibility is just to withdraw if it becomes clear that nothing is salvageable. I’m not there yet, but I suspect it’s the only realistic course.
But there is no case that the current administration can make for staying that can be taken serously. They have lost any reason for any one to take them seriously, and everything possible should be done to prevent it from doing anything, because anything they do will almost certainly create more problems than it solves. They seem incapable of learning from their mistakes and making the necessary adjustments. We’ve seen enough to know they are incapable of finding a way forward.
That’s why these midterms are so important. There is no way to stop them if there is no one to hold them accountable. You would have thought that more Chuck Hagels would have stood up from the GOP side of the aisle, and maybe more will. But until they do, I think it’s impossible to understand the GOP as a positive force in our national politics. The Dems are the only hope, and I know the idea is hard for many at this site to stomach, but it’s a cold reality that needs to be faced. It’s not about agreeing with them or liking them. It’s about seeing them as the only way to apply the brakes to policies that we have every reason will lead to more futile deaths and needless destructionn.
August 22nd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Seb, Right now I’d trust John McCain or Colin Powell to take the right approach staying in Iraq. Unless they’re on the ballot or some other pro-stay in Iraq candidate does an unbelievable job of convincing me, I’d vote for the “Get out of Iraq” candidate. That’s assuming all else is more or less equal between the 2 candidates.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:19 pm
I must apologize but I just don’t get it. Everyone says “I don’t like the war but I don’t think we can just get out.”
Why the hell not?
I agree we can’t just pack up and leave tomorrow, but we can certainly tell the Iraqi government that in X number of days this crap is yours.
Just because we’ve done something dumb doesn’t mean we can just keep doing it hoping it gets less dumb as days pass.
http://dontbealemming.com/2006/08/22/we-have-an-old-saying-in-texas.aspx
Posted by the Lemming Herder from Don’t Be A Lemming!
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Let’s stop throwing good money after the bad…Iraq is a lost cause and has been (imo) since even before we invaded. Get out gradually enough to keep the place from collapsing, but get out we must, and soon.
August 25th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Gradual withdrawl, to begin within six months. The rest based upon measurable milestones. We have to show these people we’re not staying forever, and they have to get their asses in gear to police their own land. If this bullcrap is still going on in January 2009 when (hopefully) Bush leaves office, I will be in full support of immediate withdrawl.
Cutting ones’ losses after a poorly planned and poorly managed war effort is NOT a defeat, as we have removed the brutal dictator we set out to remove. This nonsense going on in Iraq (post-”Mission Accomplished”) would have happened afterwards with or without us there–let’s not kid ourselves.
August 28th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Again, I can’t believe reasonable people are still debating over the future of the U.S. in Iraq and how we can ‘win’. Win what ? What we went to war for in the first place; WMD and the ‘grave and emminent danger of attack’ proved false! Never exhisted, not there, and some important people in positions to know tried to tell us that, and they were ignored, villified even. Everything that has happened since has been rationilization, idealism,or lies. THAT you can debate. But for the sake of the 2600 plus Americans and untold tens of thousands dead Iraqis, don’t insult our intelligence again and again about the ‘moral responsibility to stay’ argument. The state of war is very profitable, this is stupidity in its’ most gullible form!!