The Democratic candidates that is.
Or for that matter who John McCain is running against.
It is not the candidates-regardless of who wins the nomination. Nope, in either case, they have to run against the ugly baby in the room. The one you don’t mention-but whom 70% of the country hates.
With good reason.
That’s right, we are talking about George W. Bush, the man who as one commentator put it, “whose presidency has been the most disasterous since the Civil War. There is no area of policy that this president and his supporters can point to with anything less than deep shame.” The man who made the rich richer-the rest of us poorer, and dragged the United States into a war without end-amen.
He’s the guy that Obama or Hillary should go after-especially Obama.
For one thing, its hard to attack John McCain if you are Democrat-the guy actually served in uniform. He’s a real war hero and his credentials on the national security issue are pretty much impeccable. And thanks to George Bush’s beatification of General Petreaus-to run against the war is to oppose the American Soldier. Not a good place to be.
Never mind that before Petraeus was the solution-he was a part of the problem. He was a lackey for the “Rumsfeld strategy” that Mc Cain runs down at every opportunity. After the Move-on.org debacle last fall its pretty tough to point out that Petreaus was responsible for training the Iraqi Army. And that by fiat of the General and the Secretary of Defense today-that army was once again pronounced unready to fight for their own country.
No, for the Democrats the right move is run against two people-George W. Bush, who was the author of the war, for better or worse. And Nuri-al Malaki who is the personification of the Iraqi government or lack thereof.
Because the trick is, for the Democrats, is to seperate the Soldiers in the field, from the Iraqis they are fighting on the behalf of. Accept that military progress has been made. Revel in it! And then continually ask why-if the surge was such a success- American troop numbers cannot move downward?
The answer to that question is not a good one-no matter which explanation you choose to believe. Either the Iraqis under Malaki are unworthy of the sacrifices the Americans are making on their part, which is to some degree true, or its not simply Al Qaeda we are fighting in Iraq. Which is a plausible explanation when you consider events like this.
Either way, the challenge for the Democratic nominee is to split the Iraqis away from their American crutches, and make the election a referendum on George Bush’s crazy decision to climb hopelessly in the same bed with these poor people.
Running against the legacy of George Bush is a winning tactic. Transferring blame for the fact that the U.S. will be in Iraq for 50 years, to the Iraqis, is also an effective way to deflect the 30% of Americans who just won’t be turned away from the dark side of the American political force.
For McCain, the problem is harder because he has become so firmly identified with the war. His victory talk only makes sense if the war can be seen as a continuing surge success. Having to slow or stop the drawdown of forces-which not really a drawdown at all, simply an inability to continue because the Army is not big enough-punches holes in the argument that “victory is around the corner”.
Because its not-and besides, McCain cannot explain what victory is anyway.
Neither can anyone else.
And if you can successfully transfer blame for the war-the rest of the issues fall into place:
The Republicans have so damaged their own brand in the last 14 years that their own signature issues are lost to them, perhaps forever. Can you imagine a Republican candidate discussing family values with a straight face in 2008? Fiscal responsibility? A sane foreign policy? On issue after issue after issue, the GOP have blown themselves up on their own turf. They’re the political equivilent of that suicide bomber from a couple of weeks ago who died after falling down the stairs.
McCain has the same problem. The American people may not want to lose-but they don’t want to wait 50 years to win. So surge or not-the war is a drag on him. And on top of that he has another problem:
You think “Clinton fatigue” was an issue in 2000? Just wait, teenagers. And that’s the trap McCain’s in. He hates Bush as much as most right-thinking people do, but he can’t run against him without driving the lunatics to his right into fits of apoplexy. No matter what he does between now and the convention in September, John McCain has already been defined by the presidency of George W. Bush. This administration has locked any nominee into a cage of human bones and despair, and there’s no breaking out of it without antagonizing the 30% of Americans retarded enough to still approve of it.
McCain has to move the conversation away from the areas Bush is identified with. And that is going to be tough to do-it will be tougher if Obama is the nominee. Which is why he prays every night for Hillary’s success and for Obama to drop dead.
Because with Hillary-he can make the conversation about her. And not about the issues.
Which is why I want Obama to get the Democratic nomination.
So that I can have a choice in November.
And either way, by my vote, I can give the finger to George Bush.
What year did the Americans stop “occupying” Japan and become “partners’?
Do you think most Americans even know about the thousands of US troops STILL in Korea, Japan and Germany?
When McCain says “100 years in Iraq” that makes most Americans think of the way Iraq is NOW, not what it COULD be in the future.
1951-Just about as long as we have been in Iraq.
I hate it when people say “But we have troops in Korea, Japan and Germany” because it is comparing apples and oranges.
First of all the Japanese, Korean and German people do not have the emotional baggage that Arabs carry-they are not burdened by a useless religion. Plus the Germans were Westerners. Real people like us. In the end this stuggle has to be about preserve the West and advantage of the West over every one else.
Second, Americans were there not to stablize the country internally-they were and are there to defend against an internal threat. All 3 nations got off their ass and fixed themselves. With American aid yes, but the grunt work was done by the citizens of the nation. There is no external threat to Iraq-just an internal threat because they are squabbling over stupid tribal issues.
Finally in all three countries Americans could drink, shop, and screw the women there-in general have a pretty good life overseas. That ain’t happening in Iraq now or in the future. A 100 years in Iraq will be a 100 years in a civil war.
The majority of the people in Iraq do not want us there-and even if they did-it is still a Moslem culture. As long as Islam is present-they will be useless.
AND, when the US was in the other 3 countries-the armed forces were bigger than they are now. And even at that all three countries combined just barely equal the number of troops in Iraq.
The Middle East is different and less is more.
To compare Iraq with Germany, Japan or Korea is a fundamental misunderstanding of history and an indication that whoever makes such a comparison is either an idiot or fundamentally dishonset.
You want to know how the Germans or Japanese came to “partner” with the United States? Because anyone who was in position to form an insurgency was convieniently dead. Berlin was being defended by a force of boys under 15 and men over 60 as Zukov approached. Japan got nuked and decided they didn’t want another taste.
Korea is another story altogether. The United Nations force was there – and remains – to repel a military invasion. There was never really any threat of a widespread insurgency there.
Furthermore, all three countries are mostly homogeneous. There isn’t a long history of Bavarians wanting to kill Prussians.
None of the above are true in Iraq. I supported toppling Saddam because it was going to have to be done sooner or later, regardless of WMD. But I didn’t think that it had to be done immediately. And if I had known that Bush / Rumsfeld were going to do it with seventeen guys, a fucking badminton raquet and some stupid democracy agenda, I wouldn’t have supported it at all because the concept is childish and dangerous. I might be an idiot, but I thought that America was going to do what America traditionally has done in countries like Iraq; go in, take out the bad guy and set up a military government. The fatal flaw of the “neocon” movement is that they bought into the Wilsonian daydreaming that most sensible people thought was discredited in 1918.
If there’s a way that you can “partner” with people who are more interested in killing one another than they are in sustaining an artificial country, it is one that’s completely unknown in human history.
Having said all that, I disagree with Skippy-san that this election will be decided on the war. Unless things explode as the surge de-escalates, it won’t be. It’ll be a full-scale repudiation of the Bush administration in it’s totality. There’s almost nothing in the history of this administration that anyone – liberal or conservative – can defend with anything resembling intellectual consistency. If this election were just about the war, it might actually be winnable.
Not only does George Walker Bush make James Buchanan look like a titan of good governance, the only way the American people could have been more poorly served would be by putting the exhumed corpse of Aaron Burr in charge of the Executive Branch.
What saddens me is that a truly good man like John McCain is going to go to the gallows for the sins of an adminstration that he tried to prevent in the first place.
I also disagree with Skippy-san that Iraq actually has anything to do with Islam. To say that would be to say that the Shintoism that made the Japanese such imperialistic animals for decades for Hiroshima leaves them vulnerable to such impulses today.
Iraq isn’t much different than Yugoslavia, an artificial country consisting of people with long-standing tribal hatreds. Last I checked, the Muslims in Bosnia or Kosovo weren’t exactly the aggressors.
And you know what Yugoslavia and Iraq have in common? Both were created by the Versailles Treaties. It was the failure of the Wilsonian philosophy that the Bush administration seeks to expand that created the problem in the first fucking place.
Wasn’t Iraq created out of a League of Nations Mandate?
Small technical point I know. But I don’t think Iraq was addressed in Versailles.
We will have to disagree about the impact of Islam-but I truly think it is the one thing that is holding all of the middle east back from progress-as well as dysfunctional economies that , because of oil, allow them to import people as commodities.
With the League having been created at Versailles, and the redrawing of the map of the Middle East following the collapse of the Ottomans being a prime objective of Versailles, I’d argue that it’s a distinction without a difference.
What? Koreans aren’t Arabs???
If you were to look at archival newspapers of the time regarding the situation in those three countries you would note the despair and hopelessness. In West Germany and Korea there was some insurgent activity. The countries were devastated by war and the population was sullen and uncooperative.
Most of the American troops assigned to occupy those three countries were of extremely low caliber, there were even “wanna go Home” riots in Europe because the troops were not being repatriated fast enough..all in all it was a very dismal situation.
The comparison is not exact and is not meant to be, between Iraq and Korea et al. The comparison, at least on my part, is that things seemed irreconcilable THEN as Iraq is now.
I don’t think I am idiot and I know I am not dishonest. I have a BA in History and actually lived and worked in Korea for four years.
Three of those as a Peace Corps Volunteer and one teaching GIs CLEP and GED courses. I make NO claim that I am any sort of expert but perhaps you should refrain from name calling based on a few sentences. Its beneath you. And yes, my feelings are hurt. Shame on you.
Note tear on face.
By the way, let me recommend Halberstams last book before his untimely death in a car accident. “The Coldest Winter”. Its is a lengthy tome but in my opinion a worthy read.
When Mao was trying to convince the Party to support the invasion of Korea he talked about America and his perception of the American soldier. America, he thought, was waging an unjust war..They had “formidable divisions, politically and economically at home, it was isolated from other nations and so was vulnerable to world opinion” page 340.
sound familiar?
For you Skippy san.. a veteran would understand.
“…they had been there, had shared those dangers and that set them apart from almost everyone else for the rest of their lives. They did not need words to bind them together…Their deeds were the requisite bond”
Richard,
There are 3 people in this conversation you know. I did not set out to insult you but I agree with Skippystalin that the argument is intellectually dishonest. BTW I did read Halberstams book and enjoyed it. Mao was really mistaken on many things including his support for North Korea. However Halberstams point is that Mc Arthur and his staff clearly misread the signals coming from Mao’s China.
I would encourage you to go back and look closely at the histories of the both West Germany and Korea and Japan though, They were homogenous societies that for the most part DID cooperate with the American occupation once it became apparent that it was the only way to go forward econmically. It also did not hurt that the Russias were being as truculent as they were-since in their opinion the Germans could just starve.
Even if violence in Iraq stops tomorrow there are real serious problems with the Iraqi society as a whole. Its an artificial creation al la Yugoslavia. Even left to itself without a strongman like Tito or Lee Kwan Yew to whip the population into line-the seeds of dissolution are a there and not going to change. The catalyst will come when the Kurds descide to go it on there own. Problem with that is Turkey won’t stand for it and in the grand scheme of things the Turks are more important than the Kurds, Twas always thus.