Thursday, December 01, 2005

A pox on both houses.

Zbigniew Brezinski:
Q: Do you think the Iraqi army is going to be ready soon?

I think our course with the Iraqi forces verges on the absurd: It is all about us training them. The question arises: Training them to do what? If it is a matter of knowing how to use a Kalishnikov in order to kill other people, I think most military-aged Iraqis don't need our training. If it is a question of training Iraqis so they behave and act like American soldiers, that's well and good. Except that is not what is needed in the circumstances we will be bequeathing them. What is needed is motivation based on loyalty to the powers that be. That will mean loyalty to various Shiite militias with a clerical connotation and loyalty to the two major Kurdish formations. Plus, perhaps eventually, loyalty to some Sunni militias based on a tribal allegiance. The motivation is not going to be created by American sergeants who are -- quote, unquote -- "training" them how to behave like American soldiers.

* * * * *

Q: Some Democrats, such as Senator Joseph Biden, say they regret their decision to support the Iraq war. What do you think Democrats overall should be saying and doing?

The Democrats have a responsibility vis à vis the American people: to act as an alternative and to provide a vision of a strategy that avoids the pitfalls of what the Bush administration has created. The fact of the matter is that Democrats failed to do that during the grand debate over whether or not to go to war in Iraq. To be sure, some Democrats can rationalize their decisions by saying they gave the president contingent authority, and he pushed much further and acted unilaterally. Nonetheless, the fact is Democrats, tacitly at the very least, and explicitly in some cases, went along with a presidential decision based on a case that was dubious at best and mendacious at worst. Some leading Democrats have even acted as if they wanted to be part of the Bush cabinet, helping him prosecute the war in Iraq. L'outrance, as the French would say.

From The American Prospect, via Kos.

// posted by t.s. @ 8:01 PM
Comments:
I've seen people asking why the Democrats haven't been providing a strategy for finishing up and pulling out of our occupation of Iraq. It eventually occurred to me that had the Democrats been in power, their solution would have been not to invade Iraq in the first place. But having invaded, there doesn't seem to be any good solution: Staying isn't so good, leaving isn't so good. So there's no effective opposition to be provided on the subject at this point; we're just screwed (until someone figures out how to present a solution in a politically effective manner, but it doesn't seem like there's any such thing on the horizon.)

I think the fact that some Democrats went along with the invasion when it was being begun is less an indictment of the Democrats so much as a testament to the power which the Bush administration wielded at that point in time.

(I think it also illustrates a decades-long problem with the legislative branch abdicating its power of war declaration to the executive branch.)
# posted by Blogger Michael Rawdon : 10:26 AM
 
Setting aside the folks who think we should leave Iraq just because we should, what you have left is a difficult policy question with no simple answer. I would bet that most Democrats -- and most Americans -- want the best outcome for Iraq. But the question of how to achieve this is a difficult one. The people who criticize Democrats for not having a simple, telegenic answer are probably not criticizing President Bush for giving a speech last week that was long on PowerPoint and short on underlying substance. One hopes that qualified professionals in the military and elsewhere in the federal government have more to say about how these things can get done.
# posted by Blogger t.s. : 7:06 AM
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]