Behold!
A Captain’s Quarters post I agree with, with no additional qualifiers!
With some right-on context no less. Man, somebody pinch me.
Despite the fact that I’ve been in favor of ending our Iraqi NeoCon Laboratory experiment for some time now, I don’t view withdraw as the moral imperative that a lot of the most ardent (and reckless) anti-war folks seem to have in mind. To be sure, anti-war critics have every reason to be skeptical at best of Republican mumblings of the “and this time, we mean it” sort, but to my mind, when we do leave, we should do so in a calm, considered, well-thought way, with a real political solution in mind and as measured and low-impact an operation as we can muster. The entire process would be miles better for all parties if it comes as the result of a solid brokered consensus stateside, or at least as much of one as can reasonably be achieved. If that means waiting and watching through the summer for the chance that enough Republicans finally sigh and let go of the fantasy, so be it. The practical difference between going to Bush with 51 Senators saying “it’s time” versus 67 is enormous, and worth the wait for the chance.
Of course, I may well end up eating those words come September, but just the same. The anti-war left should back off now; the Democrats have no reason to push for a bang when the whisper might be just around the corner.
I was saying something similar yesterday (and Tony Blankley, linked in that post, lays out quite well the increasing pressure that the Republicans might feel over the Summer).
Comment by Adam — 5/10/2007 @ 11:25 am
Indeed. I do think that strongly anti-war Democrats have every reason to not exactly trust the Republicans who say they might be there to broker something later, but I think even more, it’s the right thing to do, and the politically smart thing to do, to cool off and wait for September, for Democrats. Whether the anti-war furies are willing to get off their party’s backs for three months is another question, but I think they will, and would be wise to.
I hope that Blankley is right; whether a withdraw is appropriate or not (I think it is, will be, and has been), pressure is something that individual Republicans have needed to feel on Iraq since the beginning, for my money. Pressure makes good policy. No pressure makes platitudes and hollow jerking.
Interestingly as well, neither of us posted about it, but even a fair few Republicans these days agree that Bush et al have no credibility left on Iraq. What they’re beginning to realize, I think, is that that umbrella extends to them as well, fairly or no.
Comment by Brad — 5/10/2007 @ 11:55 am
The converse of this, then, would be: if the Iraqis WERE making a serious effort to support the surge, it would be smarter for the Democrats to get us out of Iraq immediately?
What’s going to happen when, in September, the Democrats continue to stall for more time in order to keep the issue alive for the 2008 elections? Or when the REPUBLICANS end up pulling us out? What case will we then be able to make for the Democratic congress?
I will grant this much, though: direct action by Iraqis to insist that we withdrawl is the best argument for our abandonment of the occupation, as it goes to the heart of my moral objection. I would insist that we take with us any Iraqis who’d feel unsafe in our absence, though, and we probably also ought to strongly consider redeploying to Kurdistan.
Comment by Rojas — 5/10/2007 @ 12:08 pm
I’m not sure I understand the first two paragraphs of your reply. No, the converse would be if the Iraqis were making a serious effort to support the surge, that makes the Democratic case more difficult. I would still support it, but it is certainly easier when the Iraqis and a veto-proof chunk of Republicans also want us out.
I’m not sure what makes you characterize the “wait until September” approach as “stalling for more time”. That seems to me the most reasonable “centrist”, practical, and frankly safe (to your moral objections) approach there is. If we’re going to withdraw, and I believe we are (and should), it is certainly preferable to do so when there is a consensus for it, or at least when something close. As I said, I don’t agree with the “moral imperative to get out TODAY” line; I think that if there’s a chance that waiting until September both gives “the surge” time to play out, as well as an opportunity for a workable 2/3s in Congress, that would be better for everybody involved. I don’t extend that hypothetical line of credit indefinitely, but waiting until September (for the surge, for the Republicans, for the Iraqis, to see what shakes out) seems perfectly reasonable to me, given the way things are coming along.
We’ll see what happens then, of course, but agreeing to a “wait and see” approach means waiting and seeing.
Comment by Brad — 5/10/2007 @ 12:13 pm
I should have been more clear.
I’m obviously OK with “wait and see”. My supposition is that REGARDLESS of what happens, we may not see a Democratic push in September, for the same reason we may not see a push on habeas corpus at that or any other time.
But yes, we shall see.
Comment by Rojas — 5/10/2007 @ 2:00 pm
Because in both cases they want to time it for more electoral punch, is that the supposition?
Comment by Brad — 5/10/2007 @ 2:30 pm
Not so much. More because they’re not atually dedicated either to a withdrawl or to habeas corpus rights. Your explanation would work as well, although that would be truly revoltingly cynical of them if true.
Comment by Rojas — 5/10/2007 @ 2:46 pm
That wasn’t my explanation, that was my guessing at your supposition (though I would certainly guess political timing plays into it, as it does with virtually every decision virtually every politician or party makes).
Habeas corpus I’m less sure about, though go back to our original disagreement thread where I think I make a pretty good case that the Democrats, though not by any means the Unified Moral Crusaders For Habeas Corpus, are virtually its only active defenders in the United States Congress. As far as withdraw, I think they’re committed to it for the most part (in that I don’t think they’re going to give up on it, and will eventually win), I think it’s just a question for them of the best way to handle it, which as both you and Adam have talked about (not wanting to be stuck with the “defeat in Iraq” thing) isn’t entirely insane of them. And, whether politically motivated or not, I think them waiting until such a point where they have a safe enough consensus to make the leap is probably not bad from a policy perspective either.
Comment by Brad — 5/10/2007 @ 4:05 pm