Okay, Help Me Out Here...
To the one-third of Hillary voters and one-quarter of Obama voters who say they'll vote for John McCain over the other Democrat:
Really? I mean, seriously? Do the math for me, here; you each support progressive candidates opposed to the Iraq War whose positions on most of the issues are virtually indistinguishable. Nevertheless, you'd rather give Dubya a third term than deign to vote for anyone other than your preferred nominee? You'd rather vote for the guy who has no problem keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years (or a million years)? The guy who thinks starting another pre-emptive war, this time with Iran, is a good topic for cracking jokes? A guy who lacks the political intestinal fortitude even to stand by his own immigration bill? A veteran who refuses to support other veterans? Really? That's who you want as President?
So, what's the deal? Are you nihilists? Political naifs? Or just incredibly immature?
Labels: 2008, Barack Obama, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, President
posted by The Local Crank | 9:59 PM
10 Comments:
"rather vote for the guy who has no problem keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years (or a million years)? "
I bet, that even if things start to quiet down, a President Hillary or President Obama would still have large numbers of troops in Iraq at the end of their first four years, and pretty much as part of their own foreign policy (rather than being forced to by Republicans).
"you each support progressive candidates opposed to the Iraq War whose"
That really only applies to Obama. This is Hillary's war too, and she has been rather mushmouthed and speaking from focus groups (instead of as a real communicating candidate) when it comes to fudging over her reasons for playing a role in Bush getting his way, and of communicating her never really honest and mostly vague and mostly poll-driven current policy statements.
"I bet, that even if things start to quiet down, a President Hillary or President Obama would still have large numbers of troops in Iraq at the end of their first four years"
I'll agree that he likelihood of either Obama or Clinton withdrawing the troops within a year as the majority of the American people want is pretty slim. Neither of them will run the risk of a "Saigon Moment," evacuating people off the roof of that monstrous Baghdad embassy while the country collapses around their ears.
Much of my reason for saying that I did is because of the tendency of politicians to campaign on big changes, and they renege immediately when they get in office and keep few promises.
<< Neither of them will run the risk of a "Saigon Moment," evacuating people off the roof of that monstrous Baghdad embassy while the country collapses around their ears. >>
What army is going to march into Baghdad and force an evacuation? The Mehdi Army? They're nowhere near that powerful. Saigon fell to a well-trained and Chinese-backed North Vietnamese army that was both conventional and professional, not the Viet Cong (which had effectively ceased to exist years earlier after their suicidal Tet Offensive). There is no equivalent to the NVA in Iraq. Militias in Iraq like al-Sadr's are lawless rabbles that only operate effectively in small groups, using mostly hit-and-run tactics. The main thing they have going for them is the complete lack of any credible law enforcement in the wretched hives of scum and villainy they call their neighborhoods.
Which is not to say that the country's still not a colossal goatscrew. I just don't think the comparison to the fall of Saigon is really warranted in this case.
"What army is going to march into Baghdad and force an evacuation?"
I'm tempted to say "Iran's" but you make a good point. It would not be exactly like the Fall of Saigon. The more likely nightmare scenario is that the Iraqi government collapses either before, during or after an American pullout and the embassy has to be evacuated due to general anarchy. In any event, it's liable to be a catastrophe, which is why it annoys me that most of those favoring an immediate pullout stubbornly insist in the absence of all evidence in a Pollyanna resolution where the Iraqis all line up to wave and throw flowers at the departing American troops and promptly resolve all their differences in a spirit of brotherhood. Really, it's the same fantasy the neo-cons had, only in reverse.
"General anarchy" is certainly a stronger possibility. Even Iran would never dare march an army into Baghdad, knowing they would be pulverized by American firepower the moment they crossed the border.
Iraq exists in a weird kind of limbo right now. They're free of any conventional military threats, but their military and police forces are incapable of maintaining security throughout the whole country. And the enemies causing the insecurity seem to offer no political goals or credible alternatives whatsoever. Mostly they're just content to destroy and murder. So the choice for most Iraqis is pretty clear: either support the government or watch your country descend into total chaos. There's no other hope for stability than the government they've got. Sadly, I think their best chance of survival may be in electing a Tito-esque tyrant who can scare everyone back into submission.
"So the choice for most Iraqis is pretty clear: either support the government or watch your country descend into total chaos."
Such a situation is, unfortunately, sustainable. Look at Somalia.
"Sadly, I think their best chance of survival may be in electing a Tito-esque tyrant who can scare everyone back into submission"
The country was socialist and a dictatorship for such a long time, neither of which fosters much of any sort of ideal of working to make the place better.
"Such a situation is, unfortunately, sustainable. Look at Somalia."
Sad, but true. See also Liberia, which has only recented reconstituted a government. Or Sudan, which has a government controlled by militia thugs whose authority doesn't extended much further than the outskirts of Khartoum. Or the Democratic Republic of Congo. Or Afghanistan, for that matter.
"Sadly, I think their best chance of survival may be in electing a Tito-esque tyrant who can scare everyone back into submission"
i.e., saying "Ooops. Nevermind. Go back as you were before we destroyed any infrastructure you may have happened upon..."
I'm not saying it's not the best idea. I'm just saying it reveals the complete and total lunacy that the current policy has been.
'i.e., saying "Ooops. Nevermind. Go back as you were before we destroyed any infrastructure you may have happened upon..."'
Well, yeah, but while it's true that Tito and Saddam were both dictators, there was a degree of difference. For one thing, Tito never invaded his neighbors or used poison gas on his own people. The only problem with strongmen who hold weak nations together thru sheer force of will (plus a police state apparatus) is that they eventually die. How long did Yugoslavia survive Tito? Not very damned long.
Post a Comment
<< Home