Like most Americans, I find primary debates about as interesting as watching toenails grow. Sure, it's important in the pre-primary stage for the candidates within a party to differentiate themselves from their competition. However, it's much more important for candidates to play out the actual debate they will be having once they are chosen as primary candidates, or elected to office. Such a discussion would happen with the other party.
This Sunday's Meet The Press hosted a real debate between Republican and Democrat, Senator John McCain faced off with former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry. What struck me most immediately was the approach to the discussion between the two candidates. As I have said before, I tend to view things in a simple fashion unlike my supposed left wing betters. I saw two points of view, one that was focused on solutions and winning, and one that was bitter, angry at the past, and using terms like redeployment as a pseudonym for quitting. I'm sure even the most left wing of my readers can guess which one was which.
McCain's opening comments:
"The U.S. strategy in Iraq should be to defeat al-Qaeda, to do everything we can to reverse the increasing influence of Iran in Iraq, and to achieve or move towards the goal of military security and a functioning government."
Kerry's opening comments were a bit longer, and not quite as clear:
"Well, the Bush-McCain strategy of escalating our troops in the middle of a civil war has no relationship directly to what you need to do to resolve the civil war. So you can put additional troops in and secure a small area here or there, but everybody knows there are not enough troops to be able to secure all of the areas you need to secure and, most importantly, it does absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental differences, Tim. A policy of putting more troops in and staying is a policy for staying. It is not a policy for winning or for changing the equation. And the fact is that over the last four and a half years, they’ve had ample opportunity to make any of the fundamental political decisions that really don’t relate to security. An oil revenue law does not take security to be passed. A de-Baathification law does not take security to be passed. It takes political will. They haven’t shown the political will. We have to change the fundamental equation and create leverage in our relationship.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bliffle
Wrong again, OA: "I'll make the obvious point that we can't win if we arent there. "
We won against Russia without occupying a square meter of their land.
For the next few days I can occasionally amuse myself by belting those lobs of yours out of the ballpark.
Next.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Well, depending on who you ask, the Soviet Union was either defeated by some masterly military-economic strategizing, or disappeared up Boris Yeltsin's arse. (Now there's a picture.)
What bothers me about OA's article is that the whole thing's kind of a straw man. McCain vs. Kerry could hardly be called a serious debate since Kerry hasn't declared a candidacy, isn't likely to and very probably shouldn't even be thinking about it if the 2004 fiasco is any kind of factor.
So he clearly didn't have as much at stake on Meet the Press as did McCain, who's had a bit of practice at these things and is going to be getting a lot more in the coming months. Kerry didn't need to sell himself or say anything to try and make himself stand out, so he reverted to senatorial waffling and party line-toeing.
You won't be seeing that to such a great degree from the presidential candidates.
3 - STM
Actually Doc, the Soviet Union disappeared up its own arse, broken by its constant effort to keep up militarily with the United States (by its own choice, of course). I was there a few years before it collapsed, and it was teetering on the brink even then. And on the arse issue, no country is going to survive if it can't provide enough toilet paper for its guests, let alone its own people.
4 - Clavos
"For want of a nail...."
5 - Dr Dreadful
Stan, been meaning to ask (and sorry, OA, for hijacking your thread temporarily to do so):
I saw something on the BBC News website about some kind of hoo-ha down your way involving a teenage model. Supposedly it's a 'controversy' and has got Australia's national panties in a twist. But it was a video, and the Mac I'm using won't play videos from the BBC. There wasn't a companion written article that I could find. I took a gander at the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age websites, but nothing. Just wondered if, being your actual Aussie journo, you might know what it's all about?
6 - STM
Yeah Doc, the big problem is, she's only 12 years old. She's been chosen as the face of some type of fashion week here. She looks older, of course, but people are still suggesting that this nonsense has just gone too far. From my point of view, I'm a great believer in letting children have a childhood.
7 - STM
Clav: "For want of a nail...."
Indeed. Great nursery rhyme ... a lesson there for us all. Well, maybe not for John Howard or the CTers on BC, but everyone else.
8 - Dave Nalle
Stan, from my experience most typical 12 year old girls who could become a fashion model would kill or die for the opportunity to be exploited that way, so we're not exactly talking unwilling victim here. From the moment they discover Barbies it's all over.
Dave
9 - STM
I agree Dave, but as parents and adults we also have a responsibility to them. There has been some suggestion the girl's mum has been a bit too proud of her daughter, referring to her at one stage I believe as an "indepedent woman", and very grown-up for her age, which I'm sure she is, although I'm not sure she's any more proud than I was when my son played in the grand final of the junior State rugby championships as a 12-year-old.
However, that world (modelling) is a different world and a little care is needed. The debate is legitimate, but crucifying the girl and her mum is probably not. And as you say, any kid would be stoked ... where to draw the line might be the key. Perhaps she shouldn't have been chosen as "the face" of whatever it is she's doing.
10 - The Obnoxious American
Bliffle,
Out of the park? I don't think so. How can you compare a cold war to a hot one? Since you brought it up, say we did leave, how exactly could we win the war at that point? Unless you have a strategy for winning the war in Iraq while out of it's borders, you are not really making much sense here.
Yes, Kerry isn't a current candidate, and McCain is. But McCain's chances are pretty much over, and Kerry WAS the presidential candidate a scant 3 years ago. So I think there is quite a bit of parity there, and so too do the good folks at meet the press.
The main point of this article, is to outline the approach by the two parties. It's evident to me, and hopefully some of my readers after reading this, that the GOP approach is one focused on trying to find solutions, whereas the Democrat approach is focused mainly on quitting at any cost, and basically lying (I don't know how else you could throw terms like 'redeployment' or 'changing the mission' around to actually mean precipitous withdrawal without insulting my intelligence).
11 - bliffle
The war was unwinnable when Bush started it. Everything since then merely unfolds from the original flawed concept and assumptions and Bush's thickheaded refusal to think things thru and explore all scenarios. It doesn't matter who's in office when we finally end it. But Bush has cannily tried to assure that someone else will take the blame (a lifelong habit of his) and it doesn't really matter whether it's republican or democrat. Who knew, in 1964, that arch-republican Nixon would finally call it quits on Vietnam? It's not Nixons fault for anything more than unnecessary prolongation, the die was cast by LBJ, it's his fault, and he knew it and was too cowardly to admit it and initiate withdrawal.
12 - Nancy
My question is, why NOT leave the Iraqis to themselves? They're grown barbarians, aren't they? Let them make their own determinations - & if that includes slaughtering each other into extinction, so be it. Anybody that stupid deserves to become extinct. Why are we so set on wet-nursing them? Especially when most of them don't want us to? They don't understand, don't want, & can't handle US-style so-called 'democracy' (which may be where they're smarter than we are), even tho BushCo keeps making altruistic sounding noises about inflicting it on them whether they want it or no as a cover for less noble motives. And Puh-LEEEEZE don't insult me by telling me it's because we need to fight them there instead of over here. That's big-time-bollocks, as STM says.
13 - Ray Ellis
Ya know, OA--they've lowered the requirements for military service. You can be overweight, you can be 42--hell the Army's even resorting to door hangers as a recruitment tactic. I've no doubt they'd love a gung ho guy like yourself in the front ranks--you'd show 'em how to win that war! You already have a pair of pistols--that's a start.You need to stand as a beacon to the rest of us naysayers!
14 - The Obnoxious American
Bliffle,
Now you've gone off the deep end. The war was certainly winnable, we just messed up royally, or in military terms it was FUBAR. Furthermore, it can be turned around if we actually have some heart and do what's right going forward. You may be invested in failure, but I know 150,000 US troops that are not.
Another point here, what happened in Iraq, and "Bush's thickheaded refusal to think things thru", well actually there was more than one person who was involved in the planning, not just Bush. I'm not saying that it's not all his fault, as President, it falls on him. Point is, this is what you get when government does anything. Stupid decisions, inability to think things through. Par for the course. So do you really want the government in charge of your healthcare?
15 - The Obnoxious American
Ray, I choose not to serve, but that's neither here nor there. I am still allowed to have an opinion, just like you (unfortunately) do.
Do you have an actual viewpoint or just looking to make a meaningless point?
Nancy, Interesting Op-Ed in the wall street journal today talking about how just 60+ years ago some were saying the same thing about the Germans. Thank god we didn't listen to that viewpoint back then.
16 - Nancy
Thanks - I'll go check it out. But I still think we ought to leave Iraq to the Iraqis. They show absolutely NO inclination to do anything for themselves whatsoever. So fine. Let them stew in their own anarchy & petty tribal warfares. When they're all dead, then we can go back & take on the leftovers/victors, if we still really want the place.
17 - Ray Ellis
Of course I have a statement, OA. It's easy to "choose not to serve", yet advocate that thousands of others die there.
It's yet another thing to harp about how "winnable" this war is, yet have not one valid strategy as to how that can be accomplished.
Money talks. Bullshit walks.
18 - The Obnoxious American
Ray,
Once again, instead of attacking the idea, you attack the person. I don't serve. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. I don't want my fellow Americans dying in Iraq just like you. But none of this has anything to do with what is the right move for the country. And that is the point of the article.
Instead of trying to squelch my viewpoint with some attack on my person, try and actually debate the point here, or (as you suggested) take a walk.
19 - Ray Ellis
Far be it from me to squelch anybody's opinion. But I would ask you this: how exactly do you propose we win this war? Your guys haven't done a very good job thus far. If you can give me a viable solution, rather than harping a party line, I'm all ears.
20 - The Obnoxious American
Well what we are doing now for starters.
But, let me backtrack for a second and point out that what you are asking, a discussion on what can help us win, is precisely why I wrote this article. The Meet The Press debate highlights the fact that right now the debate in our legislature is about whether we stay or whether we go. No discussion of the ramifications of leaving, no alternative options, nothing. And this is entirely the fault of the Democrats who have made any support of the war taboo (Hillary to wit).
The discussion that should be occurring between our elected officials should be about the best course forward, the best options that will help us win. Instead it's dominated by this partisan sniping regarding who is to blame and who can get us out of Iraq the fastest. To that point is the Carl Levin quote in my article, which is only concerned with leaving, not the aftermath or the impacts of making that decision. This is the ultimate excersize in instant gratification.
What do I think will work? A bigger military for starters, so that if another war breaks out, we can deal with it. Secondly, work with the Iraqi government to give Maliki more power (the Iraqi constitution was framed to give him very limited power to prevent another tyrant, and now we are surprised when he can't accomplish anything). It's possible even with more power Maliki would not be much help or could hurt.
The main thing that will help in Iraq though, is for us back here to stop the wishy washy discussion on whether we stay or go, and start having the more important discussion on how we can complete the mission there. If we just did that, and if everyone was united on the goal of leaving a stable and secure Iraq, we could then engage each other, with all the untarnished facts on the table, and decide the most effective way forward.
But until we gain some fortitude in our weak bellies and decide to finish the job we all decided to start (we elected these people like it or not), we will never be successful in Iraq or anywhere, and our standing as the remaining superpower is in massive doubt.
21 - Ray Ellis
How can we increase the military when so many right wingers choose not to serve?
Give Maliki more power? Now there's an idea. He tries to thwart us at every turn as it is. He's a Shiite puppet, at best.
Here's what will help Iraq. Say in no uncertain terms you guys need to get your shit together, as in yesterday. Yah, yeah-- we accidentally started the insurgency by fucking up in the first few months of the war. But you know, you can't make an omelette with out cracking some eggs. We didn't topple Hussein for you guys to revert back to tribal and secular gangbanging. Now-- here's your option-- get your shit together, or we split. How would you guys like dealing with Iran?
As long as we pander to Maliki's whims, we have no chance there. We could call a spade a spade, drop all pretenses and just say we're an occupying force, and you play by our rules--no options.
Is that liberal enough for you?
22 - The Obnoxious American
More people in the military are right wingers than left, which makes sense when you consider the lack of vertebrae that seems endemic to supporters of the Dem party. Ah, but I digress.
Problem with what you are suggesting is that many Iraqis wouldn't mind being under the ahmedinijad umbrella. So that type of psycology won't work. And if they called us on this bluff, ultimately we'd lose out. So that's just not a good idea.
It's funny for a liberal to advocate treating this like an occupation when at the same time liberals are screaming that it's too much like an occupation. Make up your mind, tough tactics or kid gloves, it can't be both.
Fact is, what will help is some solidarity among Americans. Period. Once the other half grows a pair, we can proceed to figure out the best way forward. But you are simply touting the Democratic party line as espoused by John Kerry (and outlined above). Creating "uncertainty" in Iraq won't help us OR the Iraqis.
Like it or not, we are in Iraq now. We need to deal with it. Leaving these guys to let a civil war break out, or for Iran and Turkey to fight over the leftovers isn't an option, and won't prevent us from having to go back there later and fight an even worse war.
23 - REMF
Dittos, Ray. It is interesting how many chickenhawk conservatives choose to stay home while sending someone else to fight their battles for them.
(MCH)
24 - Nancy
If so many Iraqis wouldn't mind being under the Ahmendinijad umbrella, then you'd prefer to keep them under ours by force of arms & occupation indefinitely? Oh, that's bright. In case you hadn't noticed, occupations never work. All it will mean is another generation of Iraqis even more determined to get us out - even if that means climbing into bed with people they hate almost as much as us; after all, at least the Iranians are fellow muslims, even if the wrong sect. They aren't decadent westerners under the despotic leadership of that arch-crusading, swaggering christian bully, Bush.
25 - Nancy
Again, I ask: what's the point of us being there at all any more? Are we just there to prove a point, to allow Dubya to show that he's a real 'war prez' and/or to pay off his debt to the oil interests? We're not there to instill democracy - or what passes for it in the US; THEY DON'T WANT IT. Period. They've all made that perfectly clear. So why are we there? For Bush's fucking ego, since he claims it isn't for the oil? I'm not willing to sacrifice more soldiers for his ego & braggadoccio. Let him & his slutty daughters go to Iraq & pick up weapons themselves; THEN maybe I'll think about supporting that cowardly swaggering jerk. Meanwhile there IS no justification for being there, except his ego.