Centerfield

I respect her willingness to say unpopular things to her base (maybe this is intended to be her "Sister Souljah" moment), but it is the US that has screwed up things in Iraq. The Iraqi government is incompetent, but we are responsible for that government. Blaming the Iraqis is just a way to get us off the hook. And we should get off the hook, but I would prefer to be more intellectually honest.

Marc, there's no real question but what the US has made numerous bad decisions in Iraq. But it is not entirely clear to me why you way that "we are responsible for that government." Are you saying that the voting in the election was fixed (and by us)? Or that, except for our presence, the government would have been violently overthrown long since (thus making us responsible for its continued presence)? Or just that without us Saddam would still be in power instead? Or....

A clarification, please. thank you.

Ditto what Marc said.

The onus of responsibility is upon BushCo and those who voted to abdicate their constitutional responsibility vis-a-vis invading Iraq because the degredation of Iraq along sectarian/ethnic lines was highly predictable. In fact I believe that Barak Obama, among others, said as much *before* Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq: Obama 2002

We could, after all, have left Saddam in power. It would've been worse for the Iraqis but we wouldn't be responsible. :-)

Tully, define "worse".

Seems to me that while less organized, what's been happening isn't subtantively different from what happened before. Many people still die because of their sect/ethnicity, many people still die because they are perceived as standing in the way of power, many people are still displaced because they belong to the wrong sect/ethnicity, brutal torture and agonizing death are still preferred means of dealing with the opposition. What's really all that different except the level of organization behind it?

Is it somehow less onerous to be brutally murdered at the orders of one of dozens of madmen rather than at the order of one? Are the husbands, wives or children any less traumatized or deprived? Are the stolen homes and property any less of a deprivation to those from whom they were taken?

The onus is not on Bush to establish a just end to violence in Iraq. America removed a serious threat with a proven record of accomplishment. The military did not have clear post war plans to rectify Iraqi tensions we did not create. The most recent plan requires tribal Sunni nationalists, moderate Shia and Kurds to unite against AQ and extremist militias while supporting equity of resources and order. And what share should the price of peace be for the world at large?

Does ANYONE think Democrats would have ever approved of 500,000 troops in a ten year Iraq Peace plan or a new domestic draft to prevent Syria, Iran. the Brotherhood in Egypt or the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan from aiding Iraqi violence? Biden’s number have dropped in part to stating on Meet the Press that most Democrat in Congress believed in 2002 that by 2007, Saddam would be on his way to reconstituting his WMD programs and possibly have constructed a bomb. This wasn’t because Bush convinced Democrats, but because of independent analyses that extrapolated the likely end of sanctions and contracts with Russia, China and France. Be clear their nationals would be on the ground in Fascist Iraq this very moment as we contemplate Iraq and Iran racing to build nukes while fomenting the destruction of Israel and the triumph of extremist Islam. See, I have much more to be happy about than the PREDICTABLE consequence of doing nothing. Getting out of bed is a pleasure…..

THERE WERE CLEAR MISTAKES BY THE US, but these offer ZERO excuse for the predictable and self-defeating hostility between Sunnis, AQ, Shiites, Kurds and the PPK. Shall we forget the Iraqi Shia freely elected a divisive government causing the Kurds into balking. Bush didn’t just invent his strategy, he found people who convinced the administration that their theory could work within the parameters of wishful expectation. Nowhere did these miscalculations diminish the threat of Saddam or the purpose of removing him..

Hillary must draw some continuity with Bill’s strategic foreign policy as they go out together on the trail. This has always been a two-act play. Bill Clinton was as much a unilateralist as he was an internationalist. It was Bill Clinton that destroyed Saddam’s military legs. It was Hillary that voted yes on Iraq AND turned down the Democratic attempt to make Bush use more diplomacy. What irked Hillary and Bill was that rushing forward with a laughable post-war plan (see Ricks) was negligent to the extreme. The tactics used to blunt criticism of this negligence was also politically negligent in creating needless and dangerous polarization. Despite this, Hillary and Bill were both civil and supportive overall on Iraq as Lieberman drew more Leftist fire.. I think the Clinton’s mean what they say to AIPAC. The time is long overdue for a Democratic leader to chastise their constituency. I think we will have to wait for the general election for that.

As far as Hillary dissing Iraqi leadership, Iraqis resists promised reform now at their own peril. I have never heard her say Iraqis weren’t worth the blood to defend from themselves or AQ. Bush has been pressing Malaki privately for many months. Hillary is right for holding the Iraqi government and various political groups/militias to account while 10,000 US soldiers are going after AQ.. The deBathiffication was a Shia obsession. The oil bill is being held up by the Shia. Sadr attacks Sunnis while Iran’s other Patron, AQ attacks Shia. Has this absurd dance been exposed by Iraqis themselves?.

Here, intellectuals attack the notion of uniting Kurds and Sunnis as a balance against the Shia which can curb Turkish anger and expose Iranian/Syrian duplicity. For balance to form in Iraq, Kurdish, Sunni and Shia nationalist must step towards Federalism and declare war on insurgents who won’t cease fire. Hillary is genuine about her take. I think she has been consistently striking a better balance than most on Iraq. We have made a mess instead of leaving Iraq to the wolves. Thousands of soldiers have died for Iraqi Freedom. Nationalists must stand up. Saddam was a dangerous thug that Russia and France were about to cut loose. These are Clintonian positions. From what I gather Hillary’s past comments suggest she would have sent more troops, made the handling of contractors more transparent as well as promote a more realistic approach to deBathification, disbanding the army and training soldiers. I can say many anticipated FIASCO and to Clinton's credit she has been echoing Ricks’ line for some time without succumbing to the Leftist rant..

While I make no claims to insider knowledge, Hillary strikes me as a bit Thatcherish. The Right brandishes her as an UltraLefty, but she is not. Many have claimed Hillary was the force behind bombing Serbia into submission. Remember, Hillary was very Liberal by yesterday's standard, not by today’s aberration. I think at a deeper level she thinks, "who the hell are these present Lefties to tell me what Jefferson or Lincoln had in mind? Who gave them some de facto right to rewrite the principles that Liberalism has defended for sixty years?” I think the Clintons see themselves a bit more New Democrat, seeking to extend the legacy of FDR and Kennedy. They understand that about half of America is conservative which is lost sometimes listening to Obama or Edwards. I understand her personality has had some high negatives and I don’t know if she can convince Pat people change or that it matters.. My bottom line on my choice will be security and the defense of Liberal principles al la 1950 – 2000 which includes rational energy policy, all serious environmental issues, healthcare and human rights/civil liberty concerns.. The only hope as I see it for Liberalism is for a popular Democratic nominee to reframe the issues in a way more consistent with former Liberal ideas. Vilifying the Democrats possibly best chance at center, or a republican like Bloomberg who moves Left gets us nowhere and fails to recognize is that what America needs now is a center.

"Vilifying the Democrat's possibly best chance at center, or a republican like Bloomberg who moves Left, gets us nowhere and fails to recognize that what America needs now is a center."

Sorry for all those typos.....

Ultimately, only Iraqis can solve Iraq's problems. They can choose to be Iraqis first, and find a way to come together on common interests and forge a genuine nation. Or they devour one another out of fear, hatred, and the perceived need for retribution.

That's the reality, and both the US and each faction in Iraq has to face it.The meter's running, time's running out, the clock is ticking, the fat lady is singing her warm-up do-re-mees. Say it any way you want. The next President is VERY likely to institute some sort of "we've reached the time for a new phase" kind of policy change.

HC is just one possible leader who's sending this signal. Others will follow.

America removed a serious threat with a proven record of accomplishment.

A serious threat... to us?

Not even close.

A proven record of accomplishment?

If you consider not being able to achieve more than a stalemate during a long and drawn out war and armed by both the United States and the Soviets, and with one of the largest standing armies on the planet against a country with outdated equipment, no spare parts for the potentially most lethal components of it and under a stiff embargo... then yeah, that's some accomplishment... and some threat too.

In terms of state-sponsored terrorism, compared to Afganistan, Iran, Syria and Yemen, Saddam's Iraq was a small fish in a big pond. Even compared to the indirect state-sponsored terrorism of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Iraq was a small fish in a big pond. He gave token sums to Palestinians for patently obvious intra-Muslim PR reasons. As a dedicated secularist he had precious little motive for aiding any of the Islamist terrorist groups. Both sides in that equation saw the other as an inherent, fundamental threat.

All of this was abundantly obvious the day before Bush gave the order to invade Iraq.

Was Saddam a very bad guy? You bet he was!

Were we lied to constantly and did we have our intelligence rudely insulted at every step of the way towards invading Iraq and ending up in the quagmire we now find ourselves in? You bet we were!

Listen to what Obama said in 2002. None of it was even remotely close to poorly understood or little known. Yet he nearly prophesied exactly what unfolded. What made him stand out then was that he wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid.

The reason that the netroots cannot blame the Iraqis is that part of the current moveon.org meme is that everything will get better in Iraq after the U.S. leaves. The netroots need to believe that, somehow, Iraq will become so safe after the U.S. abandons Iraq that NGO's and the UN will be able to establish and maintain effective relief capabilities.

So, anything that goes against that talking point must be booed down.

Kevin, I'm pretty sure that by SH's "proven record of accomplishment" Tully meant that he was a really bad guy.

Surely you don't want to suggest that Hussein's limited competence was such that leaving him in power was in any sense a palatable decision, right?

I mean, if we want to have a serious and honest reality-based discussion, we have to reconcile SH's pretty high level of evil and hostility against the extraordinary difficulty of the policy we undertook, right?

This is what helps me avoid becoming unhinged in such discussions. I think you can make a realpolitik argument that perhaps leaving Hussein in power was, pragmatically speaking, the least bad choice from a small menu of crappy ones.

But I think it's the worst sort of revisionism to suggest it was a no-brainer. My take is that our leadership decided that in the wake of 9/11 we needed to show our seriousness and and the end of our willingness to tolerate hostile mishchievous regimes jerking everyone around by gaming the UN. Masking Iraq exhibit A after Afghasnistan, which everyone says they supported. Personally I do not support pre-emption in any but the most extreme circumstances, and I didn't think the situation called for it on the timetable or in the way Bush chose to enact it. But I'm fair-minded enough to acknowledge that it was a reasonably defensible approach under the circumstances.

I largely agree with Kevin in general. I certainly think the invasion was a mistake and it's led to nothing but problems. But my specific comment related to the fact that (and Kevin I think alluded to this)the post-occupation problems were largely predictable. The Administration certainly should have known that it would be difficult to go in and establish a stable government. The fact is, the Maliki government is largely our creation. I'm not saying we "fixed" the elections, but we created the specific conditions under which the government was voted in. It's not likely that we would have tolerated say, a Badr government. So, in both those ways, it's unfair to blame the Iraqis for not being able to play by our rules and establish a government that works the way we would like. Whether or not we were right to depose Saddam (and I clearly think the invasion was a mistake), the Iraqis obviously didn't invite us to come invade the country. It was the invasion that destabilized the country--to say that it's now the Iraqis "fault" for not having a working government is just an attempt to evade responsibility.

And Superdestroyer's comment is wrong. In fact, the netroots have blamed the Iraqis as a way of abdicating our responsibility and allowing us to leave. My position is different and, I suspect, different from Kevin's. I think because we are responsible for what happened, we can't just abandon the country to its own misery by saying, "tough luck, you fix it now." I don't know, frankly, if our presence inflames the situation or keeps a lid on things from becoming even worse. If it makes things worse,then we should clearly leave. But, to the extent that our presence has some kind of moderating effect on the violence, I don't think we can simply say, it's your fault, we are leaving, you are on your own. Bush created this mess but unfortunately it's not going to be so easy to extricate ourselves. And Bush won't even let into the country the Iraqis who are being hunted and persecuted because of their ethnicity or because they supported us because he doesn't want to acknowledge that the invasion has created such chaos. I think the Left is kidding itself if it thinks that a Democratic president is just going to come into office and immediately withdraw. It ain't going to happen because the consequences of letting Iraq descent into total chaos are too serious. If the insurgents had half a brain, they would stop, let the US claim victory and leave, and then start up again.

I agree with Marc that, regardless of the merits of our going in, we have to address the situation as it is today. Which means, in part, that if we leave we owe it to those Iraqis who have worked for us, fought for us, or supported us to provide a safe way out.

If that means simply transport elsewhere in the country, OK. If it means transport somewhere else in the world, OK. If it means wholesale immigration to the US, still OK. Even those who think the invasion was a horrible action, and those Iraqis who supported us were totally wrong-headed, need to recognize that we have a moral obligation here.

Whether or not we were right to depose Saddam (and I clearly think the invasion was a mistake), the Iraqis obviously didn't invite us to come invade the country.

But were they glad to see us? Suppose someone had done a poll asking all Iraqis whether they preferred to continue under the leadership of SH or to have us depose him and try to set up a democracy. Do you honestly think a majority would have said "no thank-you, we're all set?" I don't know the answer myself, but I think I can guess...

It was the invasion that destabilized the country--to say that it's now the Iraqis "fault" for not having a working government is just an attempt to evade responsibility.

Oh, absolutely it was the invasion that set the rest of the specific events in Iraq in motion. That's not rationally deniable. And I agree that it's not fair to say its the Iraqis "fault." Much more important than the fact that its unfair to assign blame is the fact that assigning blame is not a useful problem solving strategy.

IMO, the reality at this point is that the only group of folks who can solve Iraq's problems by taking responsibility is Iraqis themselves. We started it, but we can't finish it. That's just the way it is, and Clint-stylee, "deserve's got nuthin to do with it."

The people and government of Iraq have so far failed to come together and take control of their nation. That's true, much as HC has described it, even though she may well be framing things as a blamestorm.

Here's the thing: It's legitimate to question whether the factions inhabiting what we call Iraq are legitimately interested in sustaining Iraq as a nation of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shit'ites who cooperate as anything resembling brothers. But they are the only ones who can do it.

Suppose you told some guy his wife was sleeping around on him, and that ruined the marriage and messed up the family real bad. Arguably, you "started" it. What unfolded therafter was in an important sense "your fault." Prior to you meddling, the husbanmd was in an ignorant state of comparative grace, right?

So your bad, your fault. Is it your responsibility to fix it? Is it even reasonable to think you can? Nope. Only the parties to the union can fix it, if they even want to.

Now you could respond pithily on how such an analogy demonstrates the perils of getting involved in the first place. If you did, you'd get no argument from me. But whether we talk analogy or Iraq, we can't unbake the cake. The ship has sailed, the die has been cast.

I'm sure many folks are upset at the notion that we're getting ready to step up and resolve the chaos that we unleashed. But the unavoidable fact is that no one else can. What we've done so far may indeed amount to no more than an ill-considered but good faith effort. Good faith efforts often go to no avail. Our power over the outcome is dwindling. Iraqis taking the reins just isn't optional. The timing of the transition is negotiable, but the meter's running. Tick-tock.

Thanks Brian, I was the one mentioning "accomplishments", not Tully.. And you are right. Saddam was certainly competent enough to invade Kuwait, fund those in Gaza who are now at war with Fatah, and build a reactor worthy enough for an Israeli strike (much to the world's relief when years later they were forced to reverse Saddam's invasion of Kuwait). He used WMD on his own population and Kevin should understand the history of the war between Iran and Iraq before he makes an armchair decision about why it was a draw.

Kevin, if Saddam posed little threat to the US, then how can we reasonably discuss the threats of Iran, AQ, Hizb'Allah or even the Taliban? By what measure do you say he was not a serious threat? Look what Iran has accomplished in five years with international sanctions. Saddam was a monster with two sons that was eager to bring in the Russians, Chinese and French to jump-start his military industry with oil wealth they had used to bribe the UN. Any of this not borne out by FACTS Kevin? Is it not true that Saddam's cabinet meetings were recorded and are now US property? To sit back and conclude that Saddam was just "a bad guy" yet not a serious threat is disingenuous at the least. Perhaps this is because under no scenario would you ever send troops to oust him, so who cares if he fielded 1.5 megaton warheads by 2010 on modified Russian missiles. Not our problem. This likely scenario offered Iran the perfect excuse to do the same and Israel, Iraq and Iran with other rushing to catch up would be spiraling now towards massive pre-emptive attack ( see 1967 ). Is there any rational refutation of this scenario or is predicting global warming a more exact science? I don't mean to be rude, but let's spin the tale more realistically. The whole premise of the Left's do nothing solution IS a rather religious belief that an unstable dynamic will right itself despite negative initial conditions as though the Middle East was actually a stable dynamic like a pendulum or a even dam bursting. Given enough time things will settle down under the load of entropy. Right? Unfortunately, Middle East dynamics are hardly linear mechanics. Or to put it another way, a lecture in Pakistan can produce car bombs in Baghdad..

"In terms of state-sponsored terrorism, compared to Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Yemen, Saddam's Iraq was a small fish in a big pond. Even compared to the indirect state-sponsored terrorism of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Iraq was a small fish in a big pond. He gave token sums to Palestinians for patently obvious intra-Muslim PR reasons. As a dedicated secularist he had precious little motive for aiding any of the Islamist terrorist groups. Both sides in that equation saw the other as an inherent, fundamental threat."

This is patently false. Not one of the first countries you mentioned possessed the technology or used WMD against their own populations. Saddam had a twenty five year history with WMD. You're trying to minimize Saddam's influence and over look the effectiveness of the sanctions the Left, along with Russia, France and China were ready to lift over “humanitarian reasons”. Nutroots then were claiming the US was killing Iraqi babies. You over look the help Iran received to combat Saddam and the logistical problems inherent in Iraq's conquest of Iran or visa versa without better missiles and an air force. That explains Saddam’s impatience with acquiring both along with reconstituting his WMD programs. Again, in fairness to the facts, listen to Saddam's cabinet meetings and even Putin's 2003 revelation regarding the terrorist direction Saddam was planning. I am not sure whether it’s a racist thing or just hardcore denial, but it seems reasonably obvious where history would have run without removing Saddam. He wasn’t stupid and had plenty of advice from our present “partners”.

Iran presents a different problem because a large segment of Iran favors peace and commerce with the West. How do you destroy the unacceptable weapons of the ruling class of 300 or so clerics without hurting the people? At what point do we prevent the acquisition of nukes given the record of Iranian accomplishments? Here is an example of what happens when the international community tries peacefully to restrain a monster, which Ahmadinejad certainly is. Kevin, you can sound tough on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan all you want, but what is the plan? Invade Pakistan, boycott the Saudis? Do you even have a plan to prevent nukes from falling into extremist’s hands should your invasion of Pakistan cost Musharaf his life? Reality is chaos, get used to it. We have only probabilities to choose from, not idealistic certainties. You are frustrated because linear solutions don't fit over nonlinear problems. It would be nice to view Iraq as a simple dynamic made unstable by the introduction of US force. There are too many unintended consequences of inaction or action so one must play the scenario game and find options with the less likely negatives. Saddam or Ahmadinejad with the bomb and oil money is not a viable option that can fit Cold War containment ideas. Let us NOT swap one wishful expectation with another.

Marc, you are right that the Bush administration should have had better contingencies with metric triggers given the huge mess Iraq could become. It is wrong however, to say our influence on the politics created our responsibility for the political results. And Iraq was not stable before we invaded. I keep coming back to this, but you are looking at Iraq as though it was a planet following Newtonian trajectories. Then it gets hit by a bad US asteroid. Iraq was and is not that kind of phenomenon. Iraq internally and in relation to the world was extremely unstable, but an iron fist was keeping a lid on it. This put a strain on Saddam and caused him to spread vasts munitions and loyal shock troops over his entire country. Iran and Pakistan are not stable either. Even Russia and China are not stable within themselves or in relation to the world. Don’t be fooled by appearances. You are intentionally missing the point when you say, "it's unfair to blame the Iraqis for not being able to play by our rules and establish a government that works the way we would like." THEY CAN"T ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS FOR THEM. Now whose fault is that? We created Sadr, AQ, the PPK, the Batthist extremists? You are confusing temporary external stability with extreme and violent control of huge instabilities. That is why Saddam often shot alot of people he thought wanted him dead. That is why he felt he had to play the terrorist proxy game (see cabinet tapes).

You did say something that rings true to an extent. Netrooters have blasted the Iraq government AND people for not being worthy of our continued presence and perhaps that is just a ploy to make it easier to leave. Some really do think there are few worthy of US protection and Israel is NOT included. Think about it. What could they say, that Iraqis need our help? This created a huge rift between Liberals who saw humanitarian reasons for staying and the Kosmunists who don't care. Now many nutrooters have changed their tune and are taking the "leave to make Iraq better approach" which reunites the warring Left factions (not including the continued isolation of Democratic centrists). This gives Clinton her window. She can Liberally say, "Shape up Iraqis, we don't want our blood to have been in vain AND we will be around, but you have to move forward." This is the centrist ground for reasons you mentioned. We invaded and HAVE shed blood for our responsibility. Iraqis are even more responsible and they have shed blood too. For us to remain, Iraqis must take more responsibility. Iraqi leadership from the central government to tribal leaders must stand up as Iraqis. Had they tried extra hard long ago, they might have murdered the Brotherhood’s nazi/fascist student named Saddam Hussein and Iraq could have taken a different course. Or did we have to do that too?

Tully, define "worse"....What's really all that different except the level of organization behind it?

The level of violent mortality for one thing, as in best-estimate roughly two-thirds or less the violent death rate as under Saddam despite the ongoing violence, no wholesale state shredding of living human beings, no new mass graves being bulldozed and filled, etc. That's including current simple murder figures, something not included in the Saddam regime totals. They never recorded them. (Life under Saddam, by the regime's official figures, was nearly crime-free! A veritable utopia!)

Current internal polling [PDF] in Iraq shows that the only folks who think things were better under Saddam are the Sunni Arabs who were on top under Saddam (and BDS sufferers). And that number is itself declining as Sunni sheiks come to the realization that the best way to get rid of us is to get rid of Al Qaeda, whom they have also come to detest.

It's a pretty sad commentary that polls show the Iraqis have more faith in their government and the direction of their country than Americans have in theirs.

Is it all peachy keen in Iraq? Nope. Are things looking up, according to the Iraqi public itself? Yes. Is it better in Iraq right now than it was under Saddam? According to the Iraqi people themselves, YES.

Y'all can keep angsting over the past and rehearsing old rhetorics, but we are where we are. Deal.

Agreed.