by d52boy
Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 12:00:43 AM EST
When I watched the Senate Armed Forces Committee question Rumsfeld and the generals the other day, only Kennedy and Byrd were off-topic. Everybody else was onside with the Pentagon: build up the political side, build up the Iraqi defense forces, hold the line in the meantime, and eventually we will see a functioning democracy, a moderate, free Iraq--with perhaps a small, persistent, but manageable insurgency continuing more or less indefinitely. Lots of talk about positive polling in Iraq: the vast majority support US presence, and think that things are getting better. The troops, too, are happy to be there, feel great about the mission, and are appreciated by the vast majority of locals. Insurgents and their supporters constitute 'one-tenth of one percent' of Iraqis. And although Kennedy and Byrd were clearly not buying this, they also were ineffective in putting forward an alternative view.
Why? Because the only alternative is too radical for them.
To say that "a free, democratic Iraq" is code-language for a US client state that will guarantee the availability of oil and make peace with Israel. To point out that if you allow real democracy in Iraq, the most probable result is civil war and regional conflagration. Etc.
The best the Dems could do was Levin's argument that the Iraqi government should be pressured to include the Sunnis and agree to a constitution by telling them that if they don't keep to their own timetable, the US will 'consider its options', including the possibility of setting a timetable for withdrawal. That's tellin' em, Carl.
But it was also clear that Rumsfeld has not changed his original tune. Whether Saddam had WMD in 2003 is irrelevant. The problem is that, post-9/11, the existence of any Muslim country whose rulers might allow terrorists onto his territory to cook up WMD bombs is intolerable. Ergo, Saddam had to be removed, whatever the cost. Syrians, Iranians, are you listening?
Moreover, Don and the generals all echoed several Republican senators' insistence that the only way we can 'lose' this war is if Americans stop supporting the war.
The writing is on the wall, clearly, and the Pentagon and the administration are preparing to blame the liberals, once again, for the inevitable dénouement.
The Democratic leadership supported this war from the start, and they continue to support it in true Tweedledee Tweedledum fashion. We are all Americans, after all, which is why Hilary Clinton devoted her entire time in the hearing to discuss, not Iraq, but Karl Rove's hatchet-job speech attacking liberals as unpatriotic. We're right back to 1968, except that this time there's no draft and therefore no widespread opposition to the war. In private, I'm sure that Dem pols are saying they have to move to the center and try to wrest control back from the Republicans, who have been taken over by a radical right-wing faction that will otherwise lead the country to disaster.
Alice in Wonderland, indeed. "Off with their heads!", I say.
Are there any Democratic politicians who will have the courage to tell the truth? Will anyone have the courage to say that we are doomed to 'lose' in Iraq because we are in the wrong? Because the war was a horrible mistake by George Bush? Because the entire enterprise was a boondoggle from the beginning? Probably not, is my guess.
Here's the short version, folks: we did not learn the lessons we should have in Vietnam, so now we are repeating the course. Let's try to pay more attention this time, eh?
