Centerfield

Frankly my take is all this blather is rather near sighted. In the rush to lament the pain of withdrawal, the more likely story will be how Iraq struggled to keep it together. Imagine that. Now wouldn't this be the more astounding story than the constant tears and predictions? Of course the prophet of hope would gag on this poosibility which says something about the arrogance of his thinking and the scope of his hope. What could be more up-lifting to this nation than to see a real country emerge in Iraq and all those deaths mean something? You post an article shoveling gloom into 2009 in keeping with the same old lame divisions. I think there is much here that is smart, but I'm reacting to the general sentiment seen in so many articles. I say, think outside the box.

Let me suggest a different story. Iraq continues to improve as investment returns and oil flows. AQ is gone and ethnic groups achieve a stable balance as Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds reach some understanding and nationalism. Who the hell will be lauded for this? Russia, China, France? Syria and Iran will have a nation between them tired of extrmeism with Western investment and even the French nearby in new military bases.

Meanwhile, Europeans continue to push back on Russian swagger and Iranian intentions. I suspect a void will present itself for America to fill once again under new leadership who ever that is. So before I give in to conventional wisdom, let me take a page out of Obama rhetoric and talk about real confidence, real leadership and real policies designed to regain our luster and appeal. This paints a different picture and it spins the the picture into one of hope and positive change. Some candidates pretend to embody this confident transformation. I hope you all weigh the road out there and ask which candidate is likely to prolong our new Vietnam Syndrome and domestic discord? Which candidate can press forward with Democratic reforms while reaching out to Republicans? Will they leave open the possibility that the world Republicans tried to create has born some positive fruit?

Talk is cheap and speculation often cheaper. I mention this here in an effort to balance the flurry of wonkery that tends to create its own expectations. Why not take a real look at the world? Is Iraq slowly moving forward? Isn't the world tired of terrorism and concerned about Russia and China? Haven't France, England and Germany reached out and expressed concerns that America is retreating? Consider the confidence Reagan inspired a nation with. Let us look beyond the partisan divide projecting rancor for years. The economy is often the victim of perception. The battle in the world is also one of perception. We need a candidate and a new wisdom that can unite, present positive futures and bipartisan leadership, so by 2009, the world and our situation is not like that which is described above. Candidates that pander to their bases, envision decline and bickering will lead us towards our fears. That Senator Obama is some of what Reagan brought. And I say this as a centrist Liberal. No Bush No Cheney No Sense is not the Mantra that embodies confident hope and realistic change. It is just a tired slogan to excite the base. Yes, it is time for Liberals to think outside of the box and look for more than vague words and style. Confidence must spring from conviction, determination, battle plans that make sense and an ability to win people over, not divide, vilify and marginalize.

The meat is in moving the world to a better place, not blaming others, preaching doom and retreat or catering to those unwilling to compromise. Think about that when reading speculation or rhetoric without much vison of exactly where we should be heading. Thanks for allowing me the space to rant. I have had one too many wonkish speculations for the day, though the writer above is bright, if not in the box.

I have my doubts if either Clinton or Obama would allow a massacre, We can only hope they look and listen carefully. They both surely would understand what the political consequences are to leaving them alone prematurely.

Since this part of the political cycle is Dems' to lose, it'd be better, of course, if any likely Democratic candidate had been paying attention to Iraq instead of DC and the US media to learn about events in Iraq. That's not on offer, of course.

Fortunately, there's no shortage of Presidents that've drastically changed their foreign policy ideas after assuming office, including the present one.

If Iraqis try sincerely and strenuously to keep their country together, or if they decentralize enough to keep the peace, and if they produce results, we will help them, including militarily. If not, we’ll pull out much faster.

I can't help but put that another way... the more we need to stay, the faster we'll leave, and vice versa. I get that the author's goal is to give Iraqis more incentive to take full control of their country, but I don't think the problem is simply a lack of will to do so.

I hope everyone is really reading the whole thing.

Max, you sound even more unbalanced than usual. Your mind turns obsessively to Obama, who gets a derisive reference as "the prophet of hope." This thread isn't even about Obama, per se.

Look, the point is that we are going to draw troops down substantivelysome day. The questions are when and how. I've anticipated an outcome like what Rauch hypothesizes for some time. Here's the thing:

Should failure come, pro-war folks are quite eager to pin the blame on the anti-war folks. At the same time, anti-war folks will be quite eager to pin the blame on the pro-war folks. That's the unavoidable dynamic. That the folks who started it are bound to get the blame or the credit regardless of other relevant facts just feeds the fire.

I can't help but put that another way... the more we need to stay, the faster we'll leave, and vice versa. I get that the author's goal is to give Iraqis more incentive to take full control of their country, but I don't think the problem is simply a lack of will to do so.

Well, that's why it's a conundrum, amigo. I mean, can we really continue to stay at current levels simply because we seem to be "needed?" How long can that last? I don't ask because I'm personally impatient and eager for us to withdraw. I'm not. Currently, I support our continued involvement. And while I don't support a public withdrawal timetable, in private l'm painfully aware that the clock is ticking. We need to see continued and substantial progress on multiple fronts, both military and political, to believe the sacrifice of our soldiers can bear fruit.

As I have said so many times before in one way or another, America simply can't want a stable Iraqi democracy more than Iraqis want it themselves. If we want it more than they do, then the question becomes "what do you do with a dream that won't come true?"

I agree with John that it's unlikely that a democratic president would undertake any sort of precipitous withdrawal, regardless of what they may be saying now. Political pragmatics now dictate that Clinton and Obama hold the positions they are holding now. After they are elected, political pragmatics will dictate that their concerns shift. Just as Rauch says, they'll need to care about succeeding.

Some folks don't have any faith in this, and even get all spittle-mouthed about such "flip-flopping." I believe that's an immature, unenlightened view. Were Clinton or Obama to forthrightly acknowledge that as President they'd need to care about succeeding, this would only the door for another more zealous and fringy candidate who truly was committed to precipitous withdrawal.

Another way to look at the primary election rhetoric of the Democrats, vs. their likely actions when in office, is this. Look at the Republicans on socially conservative issues. Would a President Romney put major political capital into a Federal ban of gay marriage? Bluntly: no. Would a President McCain (even though his personal beliefs might run that way)? Almost certainly not. And so forth. A politician, as opposed to a real ideologue, will run to the center of the party during the primaries, and towards the center of the total population during the general election. That's just how the system works.

At this point, guessing what a Democratic President might do regarding Iraq is a double unknowable. We don't know who the nominee will be. And we don't know how the situation will have changed by then -- just that it very likely will have changed.

It might be more to the point to think about what each candidate's overall take on foreign policy is. And then consider how that would be implemented in a variety of circumstances (both military and economic, among others) around the world. Because, big as Iraq and our military presence there may look in January 2009, by 2011 (if not before) the big issue is almost certain to be something else and somewhere else.

Indeed. One must consider the true consequences of the candidates stances on issues. As a greatly simplified example, if the election came down to McCain vs Obama, I would struggle with McCain's immigration stance with Obama's war stance.

It seems to me more likely that McCain would be able to push through some horrific immigration reform than for Obama to prematurely (ie disastrously early) exit Iraq. But, that's little more than a hunch for me at this point. I do see the general election coming down to such balanced decisions, though.

BY " some horrific immigration reform" do you mean draconian and mean-spirited? Or do you mean bureaucratically labyrinthine and pragmatically untenable?

I don't think we'd see the former. But I can easily envision the latter, a frankenstein creation of a committee of special-interest bastards.

Nope, you guys just don't get it. First, Brian, I don't think Obama will really pull the plug. It is campaign time and if one has something to say about our picks, then these last few weeks are the time to say it. Notice my toughest remarks come during the toughest struggle. When Obama calls Clinton's call to count the Florida and Michigan delagates pandering, you've got to laugh. So what should I do Brian, wait until after Novemeber to speak my mind?

What I've been saying all along is that Obama's rhetoric is empty and the ultimate irony is that he should refer to Reagan. What was Reagan's real thrust? I know. I lived through Carter as an idealistic student. I remember Billy taking a piss on the White House lawn. I remember Carter arm Bin Laden in a campaign that saw posters up in Afghanistan advocating the torture of any Russian soldier captured.

Reagan said screw those who might keep us under. Reagan championed the threat of unilateral action and challenged Americans to take Patriotic pride in their country, to make America First. He knew the country was tired of the Vietnam Syndrome as the anti-war crowd advocated a nuclear freeze. This is the same group Obama panders to. Reagan clearly intended a huge tax cut and wanted to gut much of the government. He talked about the evil empire and building up our military. He contemplated neutron bombs and put moble missiles near Russia. He didn't talk of missions to Mars, but Star Wars. It is an historical lie to exclude these policies from Reagan's message of hope and change. Liberals were crapping in their pants over the change Reagan might be planning. What followed to the Liberal's relief was not the end of the world.

In Obama's case, he isolates the change Reagan talked about and separates it from the meat. Of course Obama doesn't support Reagan's policies, but can he honestly think anyone in 1980 simply responded to Reagan's rhetoric and not the jingoism, not what Reagan the conservative Soviet killer meant? It is utterly absurd. I could isolate Hitler's use of change and make the case that Hitler brought powerful change to Germany.

Now more seriously, what I'm suggesting is that a Reaganesque strategy on the part of Democrats would be to say that while the past several years have been difficult, the road ahead will improve from day one. They can ask America to take pride in our sacrifice and advocate hope in a better future now that the way seems clear. We will advance alternative energy, work with governments to protect our environement and contain the spread of terrorism and proliferation. We will challenge Russia and China with our determineation to build a better more Democratic world. We have moved past the dark day of 9/11 and will never again be suprised by those who mean America and our ideology great and permanent harm. We will bring together Republicans and Democrats and end the politics of division by demanding that only our views will decide what laws and policy we arrive at. Will will move foward, together as Americans certain that America leadership is still the greatest beacon of the world. Will will push away our doubts and divisions to reclaim our prosperity and open the doors of opportunity for all. We will solve our problems together, because together we all rise to new heights or fall. As Americans above all, we must not fail. The future is ours as long as we say why the hell not, instead of why we can't. There is nothing more American than confidence and the belief we have in our ideals and our destiny. To this end, we will forever strive turning our deepest hopes and dreams into the policy of the United States of America".

In that light, how can we swallow most of the crap on the campaign trail? The discourse is pathetic. Lofty words don't carry weight, because on the Democratic side candidates are too scared sounding confident or hawkish, too America first or centrist. Politicans triangulate using last weeks polls. I want someone who isn't scared. Who knows Reagan'a confidence and understands the correctness of many of the Democrats domestic solutions. Someone who can stand tall and unite. Someone with reasonable plans based on reasonable understandings of the world we live in. Yes, Obama has step one. Good style and use of English. There are many steps. Others may have a less graceful first step, but the others are just as important. I do not sense much behind his first step. No Democrat has hit a high note, summoned the great American spirit. In light of the dangers ahead, we need at least a steady hand, a proven guide along center. All I am suggesting is that Hillary shows both the swagger, centrism, toughness and Liberal tendencies. So why bet on more the flight of rhetoric Obama floats over a mess of policy, record and campaign behavior? He is simply too scared to lay it all out in Reaganesque confidence in part because his positions and ideology is scattered. He is bright but not wise. I don't mean to assault his character though I do not think it the saintly construct some think he is. I mean he is not sure enough, confident enough to lead with strong and bold ideas, because he is unsure of those ideas beyond the ideology of them and the sense in himself he is a good guy. Yes, I believe that. He, unlike Bill is not confident enough to assimilate the other side in the name of unity. And I doubt that between now and election day, the ghost of Reagan will make Obama whole. I think the Republicans secretly prefer Obama which explains their rush now to pile on. All night FOX called the Clintons mean and nasty, power hungry and liars. What a patheitc show with Prick Morris and Hannity leading the charge.

Reagan would inspire us to finish Iraq and take pride in how far we have come. Iraq is not half empty but half full, Obama is so far from looking at these last eight years as anything positive, how can he deliver such a message? He will deliver a more liberal result on immigration and in my estimation make the grand bargin with Iran. Given his behavior during the campaign, I don't expect him out flanking Russia or China, let alone Chavez or Kimmie. Not because he is a idiot dove, but because he shows no hegemonistic tendency opf a JFK, LBJ, Reagan or even Clinton. Are we willing to approach 2012 like we were in 1980? Now how ironic would that be for Obama? Then he would see perhaps how a new Reagan succeeds using the words hope and change but meaning "not Obama". And so the cycle goes.

Without taking the problems before us as reality, the optimism Obama alludes to can only be abstract and dismemebered from concrete solutions, much like a fairy tale.

I have to agree with Max that most of the campaign rhetoric (on both sides) represents empty pandering and can be ignored. But I have the opposite take on Obama's remarks about Reagan. Yes, he would have a different approach to a lot of problems. But I think those remarks reveal that he would try (and probably with some success) to imbue the country with the same sense of optimism and patriotism that Reagan did. And his track record suggests more willingness to work with others (less blind partisanship, if you will) than Max gives him credit for.

What would he do in Iraq? No way to be certain. But in addition to the obvious (much less than the nutroots want; much more than the neocons expect), I suspect that in action he would be noticibly closer to the "slog it out" position than to the "throw up our hands and bail out" position.

Empty rhetoric...why does this surprise folks? I've not for a second denied that Obama engages in soaringly vague rhetoric.

What I don't buy is the notion that Obama's rhetoric is singularly empty, that he is more sinful than his fellow aspirants. He's just WAY better at delivering it, and THAT is what is pissing some folks off.