Breaking News: Doonsesbury Announces War is Lost…

This is actually a bit old, but I just saw the Sunday Doonesbury strip from Aug 19th.  In it, the comic’s peacenik minister character asks B.D., the strip’s ‘conversative’ wounded war veteran character, if the war in Iraq is lost.  He then expresses amazement when B.D. answers it is.  (Then why ask the question?)

Garry Trudeau is certainly entitled to express in his own opinion in his strip (unlike Berkeley Breathed, I guess), but when he pretends to speak for the troops, as he’s done in the past, it kind of pisses me off.  For the record, the vast majority of troops still think the war is winnable, as can most accurately be determined from the high reenlistment rates for our overseas troops. 

Maybe the troops are wrong.  However, for Trudeau, who’s always (duh) been against the war, to continue to have the balls to imply that our troops have come around to his side (and he’s speaking of our troops in a general sense, not in terms of some individuals or small percentage of troops amongst the 150,000 plus serving over there) is grotesque.  Let me sum up:  Fuck you, Garry Trudeau.

Adding irony to the situation — oh, those long comic strip lead times — there’s now more optimism on the war front than there’s been in several years, reflecting the continued and concrete success of the recent surge strategy.  (Which admittedly we should have done long ago.)  Even media outlets like the New York Times and Democrats and anti-war Republicans in congress have been forced to scramble due to this success, which although hardly complete can not really be denied

Is the war won?  Not yet.  But it clearly isn’t lost.  And again, let me be clear:  Trudeau is more than welcome to be against the war and have his mouthpiece characters be against the war, and to make his millions as he so agitates.  But seriously, dude, shut the fuck up in terms of speaking for our soldiers.  They are more than capable of expressing their own views, no matter what you or Joe Dante or Robert Redford or whoever thinks.

  • Jason

    Har Har…actually:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html?ei=5090&en=5a8349a0e944e61b&ex=1345176000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
    The troops aren’t all that confidant, the success is propaganda success at best, and we’re still screwed.
    Even Bush himself is admitting some parallels to Vietnam:
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq.speech/index.html

    Not direct, but pretty much as close as you’ll get with a president that believes he doesn’t make mistakes.

    The soldiers have spoken for themselves. They seem to be on Trudeau’s side.

  • Bush said Iraq is like Vietnam in that if we just up and flee the country, as we did there, it will cause a horrific humanitarian disaster and untold human suffering. And he’s right.

    Spend on time on milblogs if you want to see what our troops (as a whole) think. I will note they are much more likely to vote for candidates who support the war than for those who want to “bring the troops home now,” despite the fact that they are the ones supposedly being victimized over there.

  • I like how the newspapers were blaming the (sorta) sex joke for the reason why they weren’t showing the Opus strip.

  • Jason

    It already has caused a horrific humanitarian disaster, which is only growing with the surge:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/world/middleeast/24displaced.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

    I pretty much discount anything I read from troops on active duty…I doubt any of it is unsupervised/uncensored. Hell, with the reports I’ve seen over the past few years, I KNOW it is censored.

    Not to mention that at least the couple guys I know that have been over there would A: never go back if they had the choice and B: will vote against anyone trying to keep us there longer than absolutely necessary.

  • Ericb

    Well, things might be going well militarily speaking but if the Iraqi government doesn’t get its act together soon it will all be for naught. Even General Petreaus believes that the war cannot be won by military means alone. Ironically our greatest success at the moment has been in the formerly chaotic Anbar province where we’ve shacked up with some of our former foes and joined forces with them against the al-Qeada elements. Though how long this will hold up is anyones guess.

  • Actually, Iraq is probably less of a humanitarian disaster right now than it was under Saddam. It’s future certainly looks brighter than it did when he was running it and his even more evil sons were waiting in the wings.

    If you cut yourself off from milblogs, then you’re just in an echo chamber. I’m not saying don’t take stuff with a grain of salt, but it sounds like you’re just shutting out the other side.

    And obviously I’m not saying that *nobody* who was in Iraq would vote to continue the war. But you can’t really dispute the majority of troops are voting and have voted for pro-war candidates.

    And again, I’m not saying the war is won (by a long shot), or that one can’t reasonably think it is unwinnable, although I believe that to be far from the case. However, Trudeau should speak for himself, and not pass himself off as a voice for the troops. That’s beyond the pale.

  • Jason

    Well, I guess the humanitarian angle is “debatable”. Under Saddam there was torture, but there was also power to the hospitals and cities for more than 3-6 hours/day. There were mass graves, but there weren’t 2 million people in refugee camps. Most people weren’t afraid of going out on the streets, and women could walk uncovered in broad daylight without fear of…well…torture and death.

    I’m not saying the man wasn’t a horrible monster, but he was no Hitler or Pol Pot. Then again, even the real facists kept the trains on time.

    The future of the country, however is not much brighter than under Saddam. Yes, he was crazy and so were his sons, but there are 10 times more crazy clerics running death squads now.

    I’ll admit, however, the Kurds are in much better shape than they were 10 years ago.

    Also, since I’ve seen news reports on the military censoring their members blogs, I don’t see how not reading what amounts to official spin is being in an echo chamber. I can get spin from Fox or CNN.

    I have the feeling that Trudeau was reacting to comments he’s gotten from service members, but I won’t hold that up as a fact, just a feeling I get from reading Doonsbury for many years.

  • Trudeau may well be getting letters from *some* troops, but that hardly justifies him pretending he speaks for the majority of them. Simple common decency should keep him from doing that, especially since he has just an axe to grind.

    Censoring definately goes on for those in the military, but I suspect you’d find most of it relates to blocking information, rather than attempting to block viewpoints.

    Since you do know guys that were in the service, ask them if most of their fellows feel well-represented by those ‘speaking up’ for them in the ‘arts.’ Certainly the ones I knew when I was a reservist back in the day didn’t think so. And I can tell you that Bush is a lot more popular in the military than any of the Democratic candidates running for his office.

  • Jason

    I’ll do that, as it’s not a topic we’ve discussed. I think they would have mentioned their displeasure, since we’ve hit topics around that area.

    As far as the troops supporting Bush, well, there are probably a couple of reasons for that:

    Your average soldier doesn’t exactly have many liberal leanings.

    The censoring of information goes both ways.

    and a few more that I had but now they’re gone from my head. Let me just say that I doubt even the more left leaning soldiers in Iraq have much time to gather facts and think critically about what the Bush administration pulled over there. Considering the same can be said of the average citizen, I don’t think I’m far off.

  • josh

    I like how the newspapers were blaming the (sorta) sex joke for the reason why they weren’t showing the Opus strip.

    What happened?

  • Are you telling me the soliders don’t have a general sense of how *the war is going*? Man, you don’t give them nearly enough credit. And even if that were true, many, many more of them would turn against the Bush administration when they got home. Which has hardly happened on any large scale.

    I’m sure the soldiers in Viet Nam got a lot less info about that war while they were fighting (I don’t think many of them had Internet connections or cell phones), but they still knew the war was going badly. These guys know what’s going on, and they still want to see the mission through.

  • Jason

    No, I’m not talking about how the war is going. I’m talking about the shenanigans the Bush administration has pulled. From lying about the wars inception to handing no bid contracts to his dad’s fat cat buddies to not even paying attention to 8 BILLION+ dollars that has simply evaporated…not to mention the completely uncivilized presidential races we’ve had the last two elections.

    The average citizen does not think about these things and their consequences. The average citizen doesn’t(or at least doesn’t think) they have time to think about them and they don’t think the effort is worth it. I doubt the average soldier is any different. If they did, they would realize they’re backing the wrong(read ‘highly corrupt’) horse.

    Also, to compare the boots on the ground in Vietnam and Iraq is very much apples/oranges. An all volunteer military will almost always have higher moral and more drive to complete the mission than a drafted one.

  • Yes, we do have a better military now. But if the war were “lost”, they’d be the first ones to know it. And that’s the basis of their support for Bush; they know he won’t pull them before the job is done.

    As for the other stuff, they’d probably find your points a) either as exaggerated as I find them to be, or b) know that the Democrats aren’t going to field anybody any better.

    “The average citizen does not think about these things and their consequences. The average citizen doesn’t(or at least doesn’t think) they have time to think about them and they don’t think the effort is worth it. I doubt the average soldier is any different. If they did, they would realize they’re backing the wrong(read ‘highly corrupt’) horse.”

    Wow. That’s all I can say. You really might want to read that over again and see how it sounds. Because you’re not doing your side any favors with stuff like that.

  • Jason

    I’m reading what I wrote and I don’t see where it’s wrong. Do you have a specific complaint about it? I’m pretty sure I can confidently say that the average citizen doesn’t care, as the average citizen doesn’t exercise their option to care; voting. I’m also confidently state that the average grunt in Iraq has WAY MORE THINGS on his mind than the average citizen, and therefore has even less time to realistically think about and reason out a stance politically.

    I’m wondering what points of mine are exaggerated. I don’t doubt the dems have nobody better, but neither do the Republicans. From the way you’re talking, I’m getting the impression you’d like to be able to re-elect Bush?

    Please read the following article. I know conservatives HATE Rolling Stone, but none of this information wasn’t reported on network news reports:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

    And please don’t call my viewpoint a “side”. I’m not a crazy liberal. I’m anti gun control and fiscally conservative(though I don’t support most of Bush’s purly populist tax reductions), but pro abortion, for ‘hot button’ examples. I also happen to think this war is wrong and unnecessary. The people who think the country is divided into sides are the ones that are hurting the country and our political discourse the most.

  • There are any number of Republicans I’d rather have in office than Bush. Nobody in the present Democratic field comes close, if only on the sole issue of the war. And, of course, Joe Lieberman isn’t a Democrat anymore. By the way, if you wanted Bush out last time, any Democrat who credibly could have convinced us he’d run the war better, rather than just pulling out, would have won in a landslide. There were millions of us looking for such a person. We got John Kerry.

    The whole “Bush lied” thing is ridiculous. There’s been years to hash this out, and I’m not getting into it again, but let’s just stipulate that many of us have examined this charge and find it unconvincing.

    Conservatives don’t give enough thought to Rolling Stone to hate it. It’s yesterday’s news, and written for teenagers (of all ages) and so it gets ignored. I can’t remember the last time, if ever, I ever saw RS mentioned on a conservative blog, even if being so broad as to call Instapundit conservative (instead of libertarian, which is it). I will say the idea that Republicans are more corrupt than Democrats is laughable. I live in Chicago, remember.

    The anti-war side is a side, as is the pro-war side. And saying people back either because they are “ignorant”, instead of assuming they are equally as intelligent and of good will as yourself but have come to different conclusions, indeed doesn’t help your side.

  • Jason

    So have you read that article? You know, about the big businesses with close ties to highly placed officials making money disappear? Have you paid attention to the direct lies that Bush/Chaney has told to the American people? I mean the direct contrdicitions that were told to us…where they’d say one thing on tv and then 6 months later say something completely opposite?

    I know, it’s hard to believe. The first time it happened a few years back my jaw pretty much hit the floor. My first thought was “Does Chaney not realize that directly contradicts what he said a few months ago?”. I didn’t believe an elected official could be that out and out deceptive. But since then it seems like doublethink has been ruling the executive branch this whole time. Honestly, I can’t remember which whammy it was, but it was total doublethink.

    I don’t know what you’re take on RS is, but most conservatives I know do hate it and give it more than a passing thought. There, I gave one sentence to your straw man.

    Also, talking about the ’04 election and how the Dems blew it is another straw man…water under the bridge and totally off the point.

    I can say those people are ignorant, though that’s the word you used, not me. It is telling when most of the people I know that still back the war and think it was a good idea in the first place are also people who don’t watch news or read books or newspapers because “It doesn’t affect me”. That, weather it hurts your feelings or not, is ignorance. Go ahead, give me that ‘ivory tower’ BS, but I’d rather be a type of person that likes to gather information about the world around me and think about it critically than choose to walk around with the belief that nothing other than my immediate surroundings has an effect on my life, and that what authority tells me is automatically good and true.

    As my gramma used to say, don’t feed me shit and tell me it’s a tootsy roll, I can taste the difference.

  • “Go ahead, give me that ‘ivory tower’ BS, but I’d rather be a type of person that likes to gather information about the world around me and think about it critically than choose to walk around with the belief that nothing other than my immediate surroundings has an effect on my life, and that what authority tells me is automatically good and true.”

    That’s the same crap! Guess what, the people who disagree with you *are just like that too*. That’s the point. Thanks for the laugh, though. Yes, I’m a real “ivory tower” sort of guy. (Or am I supposed to have accused you of being in an ivory tower? I didn’t, so pardon my confusion on this point.)

    Seriously, Rolling Stone? That’s like hating Mad Magazine, or any other relic of a bygone year. It’s the Readers Digest of the hippie generation.

  • Chris Magyar

    Rolling Stone ran a picture of Guns N Roses on its cover last month. A picture taken in the mid-’80s. If a so-called music magazine has no idea what’s happening in music right now (and a bazillion interesting things are happening in music right now) then I’m disinclined to look into its other content.

    At least Vanity Fair, when delving into (generally well-written, if off-kilter) political reporting, still bothers to make sure it knows what’s up with celebs and fashion.

    Best reporting on what’s going on domestically is in the Atlantic. And there’s isn’t a news organization invented who can give people back home a clear picture of a war zone. That stuff, seemingly without hope, needs to be hashed out afterwards. The best we can do is keep an eye on the people pulling the strings.

    And, as right as I lean, our string puller is a certified numskull.

  • I’d be glad to have a better string-puller, but since he was the only one at the time who didn’t want to put the strings back in the box, we were kind of stuck with him. I could vote for Rudy or Fred pretty comfortably, though. (And we won’t know *their* faults for a while yet.)

    The thing with Bush is that he hasn’t done much to please Republicans, much less conservatives, and has done lots to piss us off. (Entitlements, immigration, etc.) If it wasn’t for the war, a lot of us would have been looking elsewhere last time, or sitting things out.

    It does depress me that I can’t think of any Democrat, save Lieberman (and he payed the price) who at any point said, “And here’s a better way we could be running the war.” There are plenty of Republican ‘mavericks’, but I can’t think of a single Democrat, six years into this thing, that has at any point chastized Bush from the standpoint of “That’s not how we win, *this* is how we win.” There are plenty of people looking for a guy like that, including me, if it comes down to it.

    Best indication of the Atlantic’s worth? They publish articles that piss off both sides. There’s a role for partison publications, but we could use a few more like that.

  • Click my username for an article that mentions the controversy. Here’s the offending comic.

    http://www.salon.com/comics/opus/2007/08/26/opus/

  • My eyes! They are blighted!

    If only I had trusted the judgement of those editors, my sight might have been spared.

  • Ericb

    “I could vote for Rudy or Fred pretty comfortably, though. (And we won’t know *their* faults for a while yet.)”

    If you’re a registered Republican, please, do the country a favor and vote for Fred. We had Rudy as mayor and while he did do some good things the guy is a mean, short tempered prima dona (come on, he’s on his 3rd wife for a reason). Just because he had a cool head for a few days in September 2001 doesn’t make him presidential material.

  • I would *much* rather vote for Fred, but I’m not even sure he’s getting into the race. Rudy I’d vote for over any of the current Democrats, which is more than I would say for some of the other Republican candidates (*cough*McCain*cough). Fred by a mile in terms of my preference, though. I hope he does in fact toss his hat in.

  • Chris Magyar

    I think it’s a shame that Condi is getting dragged down with the Titanic, because she’s probably the smartest and most competent young mind in the inner circles of Republican power right now. (One could questions where those smarts were when she made the strategic political decision to tie her fortunes so closely to Bush’s, but them’s the apples.)

    I know the left enjoys vilifying her (evil by association, apparently), but it says a lot that she’s the only prominent administration member who will escape the term without resigning (save Cheney, who would rather die, and probably will, than admit his folly in this mess).

    I take your points about ’04, Ken (though it’s on faith, as I was out of the country during that election and couldn’t really follow the candidates), but at some point Bush can’t even be considered a Republican. The expansion of executive powers and government entitlement programs alone are outright socialist, and his ability to lead during war time lend truth to the maxim that Rep.s can’t run a war unless they were generals (Teddy, Dwight). If a viable military leader is coming from that party, it had better be someone with stars and an attitude that shuns 90% of what the Bush Administration has thought about how to finish this war.

    Too bad our atrophied presidential voting system will once again whittle the field down to 2 mediocre candidates who will split votes on largely irrelevant issues like abortion and gay marriage for lack of any other differentiation. Until we shake the electoral college and the tyranny of primaries, America will be shackled to its own oversized population and a parade of milquetoast leadership.

  • Chris, I would love to see Condi run (been hoping for that for years, actually), but I seriously think she believes the job isn’t worth the hassle. Seeing the Democrats trying to run against a black woman Republican would be hilarious, though. And unlike Obama, I actually thing she is seasoned enough for the gig.

    I completely agree about Bush barely being a Republican, but then, he really is a centrist at heart. I note that nearly everyone I’ve ever heard calling him a conservative is themselves a liberal.

    Again, though, for me continuing the war effort overrode all other considerations, and there was *nobody* on the Democratic side smart enough to run on a “I can do it better” platform. Probably because it would have gotten them ushered out of the party. Which isn’t good for Democrats, Republicans or the country at large.
    And while Bush may not have been fighting the war well, he was committed to fighting it. Otherwise…well, Harriet Myers. That’s all I’ll say.

    I really hope (and I may be an optimistic fool) that this earmark thing finally brings about a viable, centrist third party. The Republicans should be fighting earmarks, but damn, except for a few they are the same corrupt bastards that the other side has (and at least they’re openly about giving away other people’s money). The Internet is really allowing for info and effort to be directed to issues like this in a sustained way, and lots of people on either side of the issue view earmarks as obviously corrupt. Sooner or later somebody–Reps, Dems or third party–is going to get smart enough to say, “Look, we REALLY will do something about earmarks and open government,” and then watch out, baby.

  • Ericb

    Maybe with the current primary free-for-all that going on (now Wyoming is moving up its primary: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070829/ap_po/wyoming_republicans;_ylt=AsNkl8evBROtEiALcyuvx8Ks0NUE) maybe there will be some much needed reform by the 2012 election.

  • ThingyBlahBlah3

    Ken, you’ve been my main man for a long time when it comes to b-movies and obscure pop culture artifacts, but you know NOTHING about what’s going on in Iraq.

    Are you serious about Iraq being safer and more ‘humanitarian’ than it was under Saddam? Please. Saddam was most certainly a bad, bad man, and no doubt he’s burning in one of Hell’s innermost circles. However, while he was in charge, the streets of Baghdad were safe to walk day and night (as long as you kept your head down and your mouth shut), people could go to and from work and school each day, there was electricity (23 hours a day vs 30 minutes a day now) and telephone service, and militant Shiites didn’t kidnap and murder Sunnis at random (and vice versa).

    Contrast that with the situation there now. A first-hand description from a longtime Baghdad resident I know sums it up: “It’s not even the law of the jungle here anymore; it’s whatever comes after that.” Ken, please, PLEASE stick to b-movies.

  • “Saddam was most certainly a bad, bad man, and no doubt he’s burning in one of Hell’s innermost circles. However, while he was in charge, the streets of Baghdad were safe to walk day and night (as long as you kept your head down and your mouth shut), people could go to and from work and school each day, there was electricity (23 hours a day vs 30 minutes a day now) and telephone service, and militant Shiites didn’t kidnap and murder Sunnis at random (and vice versa).”

    I see you didn’t mention the nerve gas attacks against his own people, the rape rooms, the mass graves, the people fed into paper shredders…I’m sure Germany under Hitler was a pretty calm place, unless you were a Jew, of course.

    Do I think Iraq has a far better chance at a better future than they did with Saddem in power and his even more vile sons waiting in the wings? Yep. And maybe this is just my arrogant American outlook speaking, but people are *never* better off living under a tyrant like that, even if the fight for a better country is costly in the short run.

  • You know, it’s funny. There are a lot of notes here arguing over the war, but none pertaining to the essential point of this blog post: That Garry Trudeau is a dick for being presumptuous enough to pretend he’s qualified to speak for our troops rather than just for himself.

    Other than that, the wisest statement goes to Chris. Whatever I believe, and whatever others believe about the worth of the war, only time will ultimately tell who’s right. But this does seem the worst and weirdest time to be talking about just pulling out.

  • ThingyBlahBlah3

    “I see you didn’t mention the nerve gas attacks against his own people, the rape rooms, the mass graves, the people fed into paper shredders…I’m sure Germany under Hitler was a pretty calm place, unless you were a Jew, of course.”

    Well, it’s nice to know that Godwin’s Law is alive and well. That aside, is it better or worse that those same (or similar, or worse) atrocities are still being committed in Iraq on a daily basis, except that now they’re being committed by street gangs and Islamist fundamentalists? Sunnis, whose only crime was being seen leaving the wrong mosque at the wrong time, are kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by Shiite militias (often operating on the direct orders of the Interior Ministry), before their mutilated corpses are dumped on their family’s doorstep. This stuff did NOT happen while Saddam was running things.

    “Do I think Iraq has a far better chance at a better future than they did with Saddem in power and his even more vile sons waiting in the wings? Yep. And maybe this is just my arrogant American outlook speaking, but people are *never* better off living under a tyrant like that, even if the fight for a better country is costly in the short run.”

    Yes, that is American arrogance. Any intelligent Iraqi would have told you that Iraq wasn’t ready for democracy, and would have explained why, with tribal warfare and religious fanaticism always bubbling just below the surface, a tyrant like Saddam was the only thing holding the country together.

    And isn’t it really up to the people living in any given country to decide how they want to live? If democracy was what the average Iraqi wanted, they would have risen up against Saddam by themselves; they might have asked for our help, but they surely wouldn’t have waited for us to come along and do it for them.

  • I don’t think Godwin pertains here (others may disagree). I wasn’t comparing an American politician over some policy dispute to Hitler, but a (admittedly somewhat smaller scale) brute. Hussein did kill half a million to a million of his own people, and did start a war of agression — by which I mean his aim was to take over that other country — that drew in quite a few foreign nations, so I think the reference is, in this exact case, fairly apt.

    As to your other point, here’s mine: I think this war means, when a successful conclusion is reached, that such atrocities will finally cease to occur, whereas they would have been locked in for many decades to come under the regime of Hussein’s sons. Surely we both agree that this would be good. The real difference in our positions, surely, is that I think the war can be won and this affected, and you don’t believe that.

    As for your other point, I really don’t care if Iraq becomes a democracy (although I don’t necessarily think Iraq couldn’t become a successful one), so much as that the main population be allowed to discover that you can, in fact, live with different people without killing each other. And maybe I’m wrong about that, but I believe it in my bones. I apologize for my progressive instincts on this if I am wrong. On the other hand, if there is literally no way these people can live near each other — or across an ocean from such others, for that matter — without feeling the need to kill those who believe differently from them, then frankly we aren’t really making the situation any worse, and we are at least keeping them from killing us. Again, though, I don’t believe that to be the case.

    Finally, nobody under Hussein was allowed to choose anything. That’s pretty much my point. Now at least there’s a chance that will come to pass.

  • Ericb

    The current residends of what used to be Yugoslavia are probably better off than those who lived under the communist regime but that knowledge would have been cold comfort for those who had to live through the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

    As far as Iraq, call me a pessimist but with Iran right next door once US influence starts to wane with the inevitable troop build down (it doesn’t matter who wins in 08, some troops will be removed) I see an Iranisn supported Shi’ite Milosovic waiting in the wings.

  • See, I think the opposite. I think Iran’s demographic pressures are going to bring that regime down, and that our presence next door, and the example we’re making, in likely to speed that process up.

    And you’re right, a glowing future can be cold comfort to those paying the price right now. But we still get surgery to fix long-term medical problems, despite the pain they cause.

  • BT

    Wow, a lot I could say here, but I will try to be relatively brief. And let me say as a long time reader, I have nothing but respect for you and your positions Ken:

    As to your initial point, I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that Trudeau thinks he is speaking for the troops. The character’s exact line is “if military folks are starting to think it’s over”. To me, the term “some” is implied there, ie if SOME military folks are starting to think it’s over. It’s possible he is trying to say “the troops”, but (and i don’t follow doonesbury), the guy he is talking to doesn’t seem to be a current soldier, so I don’t think it’s an open and shut case.

    Briefer points I could expand on later:

    -The only people you may have seen that call Bush a Conservative are liberals, but by the same token, the only people I have seen call him a “centrist” are conservatives…

    -It’s possible the surge is working, but I think that is only true if you considerably lower the bar for what the surge was intended for. It was supposed to give the politicians time to work out their differences, and that clearly is not happening. It COULD happen, but if you listen to supporters of the war, things are ALWAYS 6 months away from being OK. I could go on for hours, but our hopes and dreams for what “victory” even means in Iraq anymore have changed so often as to become almost meaningless.

    -The pessimistic upcoming GAO report, and Durbin’s hinting that even Petraeus will admit the troops are essentially at their breaking point (not to mention the scores of headless corpses that turn up every day)have me doubting that the surge, even if it is working on a minimal level, can continue to be effective. I honestly pray to God that I’m wrong.

  • Actually, I’ve seen strips before where Trudeau actually puts his words into the mouths of oversea troops. You can read a ‘some’ in there, but I don’t see any evidence of it, certainly not based on the history of the strip.

    When I called Bush centrist, it was inexact. For every ‘conservative’ thing he does–and that includes persuing the war, which I don’t see as really necessarily being conservative–he does or supports three or four flat out liberal things (immigration, education, entitlements, etc.) So he isn’t really a centrist, in terms of persuing middle of the road policies. It would be more accurate to call him more often liberal-leaning than conservative, I guess.

    I guess I should again state, and I’ve been saying this since before the war started, that I don’t think this is a situation where we should ever plan on ‘pulling out’ of the middle east, at least for the foreseeable. Obviously after Iraq settles down and establishes a workable government, we’ll draw down, but we should expect to have stationed troops over there for decades to come, just as we have in Europe and Asia since WWII.

    Our ultimate goal in Iraq? I’d say a stable government that doesn’t threaten us or it’s neighbors would pretty much sum up the basic idea, and I think that’s always been the bottom line for war supporters. (Which is why the “We haven’t caught Osama!” thing doesn’t get much traction with us. It’s not like he’s been actively committing terrorism during this period, either.)

    Time will tell if we achieve that, but we certainly won’t by fleeing the country in the immediate future. And we’ll just have to go back later if we do. This whole radical Islam thing isn’t going away until that swamp is drained.

    I pray it works, too, and not because it would prove me right. Like you, there are plenty of issues I’m pessimistic on, and yet hope I’m wrong. However, I believe people everywhere don’t want to live under somebody’s boot, and that we’re doing stuff in Iraq that is both self-interested and humanitarian. Given the necessary moral compromises of the Cold War, I find that refreshing.

  • bt

    You might be right about Trudeau, I just don’t think it’s blatant. I would think, if he meant to speak for the troops, the line would have been more along the lines of “if the military is against the war….”

    As to our goals in Iraq, to me that is the depressing thing about this war. First we were there to disarm Saddam, then we were there to spread Democracy, and now we will settle for a country that won’t attack us or it’s neighbors. The cost in money and blood seems tragically high for that outcome. And while many on the right scoff at our loss of standing with many countries in the world due to this war, I would argue that we are going to need every friend we can get when it comes to using foreign intelligence and getting cooperation in the war on terror, as those will be our most effective means of fighting terrorists.

    You are correct about the radical Islam problem, but it just reinforces, at least to me, why this was was such an incredible disaster. In attacking one of the most secular countries in the middle east, we have actually given OBL the greatest recruiting tool he could have ever wished for. Just to be clear, I am not trying to say radical Islam is only a problem because we attacked Iraq. It was clearly a problem before that, but it was not really an issue with Iraq. There were about 5 other countries we could have invaded if striking at the heart of radical Islam were our goal, and Saudi Arabia would probably be at the top of the list. Now, of course, Iraq a rallying cry for radical Islam.

  • I think a democracy is still considered the best option for that sort of goal (and I don’t believe that people there are incapable of having such a thing), but any government that is stable and peaceful would be fine. Egypt can be pretty autocratic, but it’s not a threat to anybody.

    And I don’t think there’s really been much goal post moving. Remember, disarming Saddam was but one stated reason for the war. (Although as the most legalistic, it was the main one presented to the UN under the fantasia of some that we needed their ‘legitimacy’–of course, they punted their obligations anyway.) And I think the region’s secular dictatorships have clearly aided and abetted the radical Islamic groups. Saddam certainly did.

    Again, I think we want to show people there’s a better way. If people really didn’t want that sort of life, neither Saddam or Al Queada, etc. would have had to rely on terror tactics with their own people so much. Iran is on the brink of reform, due to demographic pressures, and I think there’s a very good chance that positive chance in the region could just erupt at some juncture, just as it did with the Soviet Union, when that caught all the “experts” off guard.

    One of the real successes of the surge is that radical Islam is losing popularity in Iraq, again reflected in how much violence against the population the terrorists must use to keep the people under their thumbs. (Plus they are shooting themselves in the shoot with stuff like their announcement that they will kill people who use tobacco, etc.) Time is on our side, if we tough it out.

  • Ericb

    Well, “radical Islam” is more than one thing and while al-Qeada in Iraq is shooting itself in the foot (I don’t think it was ever very popular in the first place) and many of the former Sunni insurgents have formed alliances of convenience with us against them the radical Shi’ite factions seem to be getting bolder, apparently with increased Iranian aid and with sympathisers in the Iraqi government.