The Left's Iraq Muddle

[Surfrider]

The Left's Iraq Muddle
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.

BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.

But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."

What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.





Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.

The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.

Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.





Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.
Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.

Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.

 

[SLCPUNK]

hahaha.

Yea.

[Surfrider]

You're funny.  You contribute multiple posts to threads discussing the United States' role in the 911 attack and the CIA being the most dangerous organization in the world, yet you laugh at an article - not even remotely a right-wing Bush supporting article - written by a former prominent senator from the party that you support which questions some of the mainstream thinking and arguments from your party.  So much for discussing or valuing different opinions, eh?

[SLCPUNK]

You're funny.  You contribute multiple posts to threads discussing the United States' role in the 911 attack

Lie number one.


Edit #2: As always I have claimed the physicists and scientists debunk how the building fell. I have always stated that we are not being told the entire truth. This does not mean I think that our government was behind the attack. I've stated this a million times, but you still lie. Know why? Cause you are a fucking liar, that's why.

and the CIA being the most dangerous organization in the world

Lie number two.

Edit: Before you go off on a tangent, take a good look at what I wrote. Nothing I wrote said that agreed with the title of the thread. Which is why I'm calling you a liar. I did indeed post, but not in the way you'd like to make it out to be. Making up for Randall Flagg's absence I guess?

yet you laugh at an article

Not the article, but rather you.

not even remotely a right-wing Bush supporting article - written by a former prominent senator from the party that you support which questions some of the mainstream thinking and arguments from your party.  So much for discussing or valuing different opinions, eh?

I don't care who wrote it. It is utter hogwash.

[Surfrider]

You're funny.? You contribute multiple posts to threads discussing the United States' role in the 911 attack

Please read before responding with utter garbage.

Lie number one.


Edit #2: As always I have claimed the physicists and scientists debunk how the building fell. I have always stated that we are not being told the entire truth. This does not mean I think that our government was behind the attack. I've stated this a million times, but you still lie. Know why? Cause you are a fucking liar, that's why.

So you call me a fucking liar, but admit that you did post multiple times in the thread?? Funny how that works.? Here is a link to only one of multiple threads in which you discuss the subject.? In fact, I think I remember you actually posting a video in one of the threads.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=34613.0

and the CIA being the most dangerous organization in the world

Lie number two.

Lets see, this one should be good.

Edit: Before you go off on a tangent, take a good look at what I wrote. Nothing I wrote said that agreed with the title of the thread. Which is why I'm calling you a liar. I did indeed post, but not in the way you'd like to make it out to be. Making up for Randall Flagg's absence I guess?

The emphasized text is enough to make your name calling look childish.? Please read before calling me names.? It will save yourself the embarassment.

yet you laugh at an article

Not the article, but rather you.

In other words, and the point I originally made, people create threads about wacky-ass subjects of which you seriously post and contribute.? I post an article - an article that bashes the administration - by a DEMOCRAT discussing the war, and you laugh at me?? Aren't you usually the person trying to cite to logical fallacies such as straw-man arguments or ad hominem arguments?? You do realize that your post is quintessential ad hominem?? I didn't even state whether I agreed with the article one way or another.? I do think it is interesting when prominent or formerly prominent people from political parties take viewpoints that do not tow the line.? Perhaps articles about President Carter calling the Bush Administration the "worst administration" is a better, more interesting topic to discuss?

not even remotely a right-wing Bush supporting article - written by a former prominent senator from the party that you support which questions some of the mainstream thinking and arguments from your party.? So much for discussing or valuing different opinions, eh?

I don't care who wrote it. It is utter hogwash.

Yet, instead of discussing anything substantive in it, you attack me and call the article hogwash?? Funny.?

[von]

You know, this ongoing war, contest, or whatever anyone wants to call it that you two have waged against each other for the better part of two threads now is getting a little silly. 

[SLCPUNK]

So you call me a fucking liar, but admit that you did post multiple times in the thread?

I certainly did. Because you are being dishonest with your intent. Thus you are a liar, and not a very good one at that.

 Funny how that works.  Here is a link to only one of multiple threads in which you discuss the subject.  In fact, I think I remember you actually posting a video in one of the threads.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=34613.0

Yea genius, just as I said, nowhere in those threads did I claim that our government was behind the attacks. Like you claimed I did. Another piece of shit lie.

In other words, and the point I originally made, people create threads about wacky-ass subjects of which you seriously post and contribute.

Again, you are being dishonest with your intent council.

 I post an article - an article that bashes the administration - by a DEMOCRAT discussing the war, and you laugh at me?

Haha....yea.

 Aren't you usually the person trying to cite to logical fallacies such as straw-man arguments or ad hominem arguments?  You do realize that your post is quintessential ad hominem?

Haha....yea.

I didn't even state whether I agreed with the article one way or another.  I do think it is interesting when prominent or formerly prominent people from political parties take viewpoints that do not tow the line.

The problem with guys like you is that you think you are smarter than everybody else. You are not.

not even remotely a right-wing Bush supporting article - written by a former prominent senator from the party that you support which questions some of the mainstream thinking and arguments from your party.  So much for discussing or valuing different opinions, eh?

It's bullshit, all been said before, and all false.

Yet, instead of discussing anything substantive in it, you attack me and call the article hogwash?  Funny.

I didn't attack you, I defended myself from your vicious fucked up lies, then called the article hogwash. Liar.

You know, this ongoing war, contest, or whatever anyone wants to call it that you two have waged against each other for the better part of two threads now is getting a little silly. 

Blah...it's a cake walk. Randall Flagg once offered up his dick size as an argument.

[Surfrider]

So you call me a fucking liar, but admit that you did post multiple times in the thread?

I certainly did. Because you are being dishonest with your intent. Thus you are a liar, and not a very good one at that.

You have not pointed out one thing in my post that was a lie.? Nothing.? You can keep trying if you wish.? Now to cover-up on your jump to conclusion, you are arguing that my intent was to say one thing while my post said another?? ?

 Funny how that works.? Here is a link to only one of multiple threads in which you discuss the subject.? In fact, I think I remember you actually posting a video in one of the threads.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=34613.0

Yea genius, just as I said, nowhere in those threads did I claim that our government was behind the attacks. Like you claimed I did. Another piece of shit lie.

What you said in those threads, I cannot recall.? However, my post merely said that contributed to those threads, I do not say that you claimed our government was behind the attacks.? ?

In other words, and the point I originally made, people create threads about wacky-ass subjects of which you seriously post and contribute.

Again, you are being dishonest with your intent council.

Again, you are backpedaling.  My intent is pretty apparent from the text of the post.  I don't need to hide it.  My post had nothing to do with the content of your posts, but merely the threads you choose to take seriously.

 I post an article - an article that bashes the administration - by a DEMOCRAT discussing the war, and you laugh at me?

Haha....yea.

Again, no substance.

 Aren't you usually the person trying to cite to logical fallacies such as straw-man arguments or ad hominem arguments?? You do realize that your post is quintessential ad hominem?

Haha....yea.

At least you finally admit something.  Thanks.  I was beginning to think this endeavor was pointless.

I didn't even state whether I agreed with the article one way or another.? I do think it is interesting when prominent or formerly prominent people from political parties take viewpoints that do not tow the line.

The problem with guys like you is that you think you are smarter than everybody else. You are not.

I never said I was smarter than anyone.  I posted an article.  An article that I found interesting and maybe others will as well.  You post a smart-ass remark and expect me not to respond.  If anyone is being a smart-ass, it is you.  If you would simply read the article and contribute as you did in the aformentioned threads, there would be no need for this discussion.

not even remotely a right-wing Bush supporting article - written by a former prominent senator from the party that you support which questions some of the mainstream thinking and arguments from your party.? So much for discussing or valuing different opinions, eh?

It's bullshit, all been said before, and all false.

First, what is false about it?  Second, you don't find it interesting that the article was posted by a prominent democrat?  I am sure you found it interesting when Republicans spoke out against the war, did you not? 

Yet, instead of discussing anything substantive in it, you attack me and call the article hogwash?? Funny.

I didn't attack you, I defended myself from your vicious fucked up lies, then called the article hogwash. Liar.

As I clearly established, and you are yet to persuasively refute, I did not state one lie in my post.  Thus, your argument that you were merely defending yourself is meritless.  All you do is attack; I am simply exposing it.

[SLCPUNK]

You're like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Really, it's not worth the bother. Anybody with a brain can read this one time and see it for what it is.

Pretend edit: I'll miss you while I'm on on vacation in NC.

Pretend edit 2: Not really.

[Surfrider]

I agree, the posts speak for themselves.  Have a nice vacation.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

i read it all
i disagree completly.

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. > this end sentence sums it all. incoherent.



there is an amazing article in the this month's Le Monde Diplomatique about "understanding terrorists".
And it ends with a powerful phrase roughly saying "terrorism is the only weapon left for the weaks in this hegemonic world".

Something, our governments, a lot of americans, 60% of french people, many people across the globe do not understand. terrorism is a just weapon.

the article talks about this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dining-Terrorists-Meetings-Worlds-Militants/dp/140504716X
Dining with Terrorists: Meetings with the World's Most Wanted Militants


* This book is a fascinating read if you really care about background to the so-called "war on terror". What always interested me was the motivations behind those who resort to extreme acts of violence to progress their ideas. Are they really just blowing themselves and others up because of a hatred of freedom and democracy, or are they driven to such extremes because of circumstances?   *

 

[freedom78]

I generally disagree with this article.  First, he tries to compare Iraq with Japan and Germany.  OK...Germany was democratic before the war, so that certainly isn't a victory for the military imposition of democracy.  Japan had just seen its historic culture lead it to a devastating loss in war.  And it goes without saying that the two things being fought against, the Japanese military vs. terrorists and religious militants, are hardly the same.  Traditional warfare is a tactic of states, militaries are given their directives by a state, and can surrender when defeated.  Terrorism, on the other hand defies this logic completely.  They are generally stateless, using a tactic of weakness because to conduct traditional warfare would certainly mean defeat for them, and thus no state can be compelled to surrender.  So, these comparisons are weak, at best.

Second, democracy is like anything else, when it comes to ingraining it in a state's culture.  With some successes, and progress, democracy will be embraced.  With failures, especially early and ongoing failures, it will be disavowed.  After all, in Iraq, do many of the Sunni parties not disavow a coalition of which they are not a part?  When the loser in a democratic process decries the results, it is hardly positive for democracy, and there can be little doubt that this would have occurred with or without the US military in the country. 

Of course, Kerrey also discusses the need to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, wherever they can be found, and this is an admirable sentiment.  But, again, terrorists are not a foreign state's army.  They're not easily identifiable, first of all, and they have a seemingly unlimited base of recruitment.  Bomb the terrorists until kingdom come, and we will not accomplish the goal of eliminating terrorism. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Second, democracy is like anything else, when it comes to ingraining it in a state's culture.  With some successes, and progress, democracy will be embraced. 

Of course, Kerrey also discusses the need to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, wherever they can be found, and this is an admirable sentiment. 

1) democracy is not a prerequisite to freedom. look around you.
2) terrorists ... crystallization of the issue, washing away the real causes in the name of the "war of terror".

[The Dog]

* This book is a fascinating read if you really care about background to the so-called "war on terror". What always interested me was the motivations behind those who resort to extreme acts of violence to progress their ideas. Are they really just blowing themselves and others up because of a hatred of freedom and democracy, or are they driven to such extremes because of circumstances?   *
 

Which do you think it is?  I believe no matter how bad things are, flying a plane into a building full of civilians or blowing up a crowded market place isn't progressing your ideas or going to make your circumstances better.  Yes, it will get you attention, but its what we call "bad attention".

Just look at the civil rights movement in America.  not a single rock thrown, not a single suicide bomb and they accomplished what they had set out to do, peacefully.  They got "good" attention and sympathy from other Americans as well as the world.

[freedom78]

Second, democracy is like anything else, when it comes to ingraining it in a state's culture.  With some successes, and progress, democracy will be embraced. 

Of course, Kerrey also discusses the need to eliminate terrorist sanctuaries, wherever they can be found, and this is an admirable sentiment. 

1) democracy is not a prerequisite to freedom. look around you.

I agree.  I think I need to clarify my above statement.  When democracy is successful, it is embraced, and becomes ingrained in culture.  I didn't mean to say that when the military is successful in imposing democracy, that this will occur. 

I meant this as a reference to the many states which have transitioned to democracy, only to see corrupt leadership, economic collapse, and other failures.  In an established democracy, we would say that the leader is a bad one, and we look forward to replacing him or her.  In a new democracy, where there isn't a true democratic culture, you commonly see a population lash out at democracy itself, which is why there are many counter-transitions back to authoritarianism.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

* This book is a fascinating read if you really care about background to the so-called "war on terror". What always interested me was the motivations behind those who resort to extreme acts of violence to progress their ideas. Are they really just blowing themselves and others up because of a hatred of freedom and democracy, or are they driven to such extremes because of circumstances? ?*
 

Which do you think it is? ?I believe no matter how bad things are, flying a plane into a building full of civilians or blowing up a crowded market place isn't progressing your ideas or going to make your circumstances better. ?Yes, it will get you attention, but its what we call "bad attention".

Just look at the civil rights movement in America. ?not a single rock thrown, not a single suicide bomb and they accomplished what they had set out to do, peacefully. ?They got "good" attention and sympathy from other Americans as well as the world.

i see where you're going, but
please.

palestinians could march in peace and make blogs for years, they will still ive in prison on their own soil.
weaks all over the world can march and bring sympathy all along, they will still be stepped upon.

we have babies dying from hunger on our tv screen and we don't do shit to change this world, sympathy won't solve anything.

we have installed a worldwide violent system (i am talking about this subtle vicious violence called Greed), these people cannot get a voice without violence.

That's all i am saying.

More over this general thoughts.
What i wanted to point out, is that, unlike what our right wing governements tell us, these terrorists, al-quaeda, Farcs, all over the world, they don't hate *us*. They don't hate democracy and freedom. They don't hate our big breasted blond girls on tv or our gays holding hands in the street. There is no civilization clash.

They are fighting. They are fighting, because we - the riches - have stand and worked for years to humiliate 70% of the world population.

Terrorism is just the sick, twisted, deranged, voice of the poors and the weak. Of our system. Some die in silence, some fight. I dont escuse it, i don't like the way they do it, but i, sincerely, understand it.

Think otherwise as you wish. this is how i see it.

[The Dog]

* This book is a fascinating read if you really care about background to the so-called "war on terror". What always interested me was the motivations behind those who resort to extreme acts of violence to progress their ideas. Are they really just blowing themselves and others up because of a hatred of freedom and democracy, or are they driven to such extremes because of circumstances?   *
 

Which do you think it is?  I believe no matter how bad things are, flying a plane into a building full of civilians or blowing up a crowded market place isn't progressing your ideas or going to make your circumstances better.  Yes, it will get you attention, but its what we call "bad attention".

Just look at the civil rights movement in America.  not a single rock thrown, not a single suicide bomb and they accomplished what they had set out to do, peacefully.  They got "good" attention and sympathy from other Americans as well as the world.

i see where you're going, but
please.

palestinians could march in peace and make blogs for years, they will still ive in prison on their own soil.
weaks all over the world can march and bring sympathy all along, they will still be stepped upon.

we have babies dying from hunger on our tv screen and we don't do shit to change this world, sympathy won't solve anything.

we have installed a worldwide violent system (i am talking about this subtle vicious violence called Greed), these people cannot get a voice without violence.

That's all i am saying.

i wasn't "going anywhere with this" to be honest - i really was asking for your opinion on the matter....

secondly, you say the weak can mobilize and have peaceful demonstrations and still be stepped on but thats just not always the case.  you might want it to be (why i dont' know) but you can't discount that peaceful movements in the past have had AMAZING results.  civil rights in america, india, the womens suffrage movement.  look at Tiamenen square in China (i butchered the spelling of that i'm sure hehe).

don't tell me that the weak have absolutely NO voice and their ONLY option is to blow themselves up to be heard.  a dead man can't really talk now can he?

no voice without violence?  thats just absurd and i hope you know it.  today the world is even more communicative than it was when MLK was marching.  any douchebag with a keyboard and a high speed connection has a voice...   its up to them to mobilize and make changes.

aren't you the one who said violence doesn't solve anything!?!?!

[GeorgeSteele]

What percent of Al-Qaeda's ranks are poor and uneducated?  And what are their plans for the eradication of global poverty?

[The Dog]

What percent of Al-Qaeda's ranks are poor and uneducated?  And what are their plans for the eradication of global poverty?

Good point - I wouldn't exactly call Ben Laden "poor and uneducated" either.  He is far from both.

I also don't know how Wat-ever can say there isn't a culture clash - look at the way women are treated and how they are told to dress in some arab countries as well as the huge intolerance of other religions.

[freedom78]

i see where you're going, but
please.

palestinians could march in peace and make blogs for years, they will still ive in prison on their own soil.
weaks all over the world can march and bring sympathy all along, they will still be stepped upon.

we have babies dying from hunger on our tv screen and we don't do shit to change this world, sympathy won't solve anything.

we have installed a worldwide violent system (i am talking about this subtle vicious violence called Greed), these people cannot get a voice without violence.

That's all i am saying.

More over this general thoughts.
What i wanted to point out, is that, unlike what our right wing governements tell us, these terrorists, al-quaeda, Farcs, all over the world, they don't hate *us*. They don't hate democracy and freedom. They don't hate our big breasted blond girls on tv or our gays holding hands in the street. There is no civilization clash.

They are fighting. They are fighting, because we - the riches - have stand and worked for years to humiliate 70% of the world population.

Terrorism is just the sick, twisted, deranged, voice of the poors and the weak. Of our system. Some die in silence, some fight. I dont escuse it, i don't like the way they do it, but i, sincerely, understand it.

Think otherwise as you wish. this is how i see it.

I can sympathize with your point, in that world capitalism certainly isn't without its victims, and if someone has to fight to make change happen in some horrible place, then I'm not one to say they shouldn't.  Sometimes change is bloody.

But since we are talking about Al-Qaeda, I think the argument here is probably not the best one.  Al-Qaeda, which fights against some Arab regimes just as it does against Western interests, is not attempting to better the lives of the Middle Eastern poor and downtrodden.  That's not to say they don't attract members from the poor and downtrodden, but their basic goal isn't improved quality of life for Muslims.