John Mearsheimer was very direct and deeply pessimistic. Ten years ago, I doubt I would have believed that Mearsheimer's critique of US foreign policy would essentially mirror a standard leftist perspective. There are differences, of course, but on Iraq Mearsheimer is making an argument that would fit very comfortably into the netroots. Mearsheimer argued that Iraq has been and will continue to be a disaster, but that because of domestic politics and institutional dynamics we'll still be there in five years and beyond. The stab-in-the-back narrative that's being prepared by the Republican Party will succeed in scaring a Democratic president and Democratic congress from taking any decisive steps to end the war. At the same time, the senior theater leadership in the armed forces are committed to not losing, due to their perception of the institutional disaster that resulted from the Vietnam War.
That's too pessimistic by half. Although it is true that the Democratic leadership begs to be underestimated, Mearsheimer still underestimates them. When Reid and Pelosi caved into Bush last spring, they didn't fall apart just because the Republicans generated a "stab in the back" narrative. They caved because they were afraid of the power of the "stab in the back narrative" in the context of a constitutional showdown between themselves and President Bush over setting a deadline for withdrawal. Specifically, they were afraid that their own caucuses wouldn't back them in such a showdown.
The situation will be very different if a Barack or Hillary administration is working with a Democratic Congress in 2009. Given that there's a consensus among Democratic heavyweights to either reduce American troop levels to 70,000 or redeploy to Kuwait, there will be no constitutional crisis over passing any of the needed legislation. The right-wing attack media and the military in Iraq might object, but there is no reason to think that the right will be able to set the agenda after the Republicans lose the presidency and lose more ground in Congress in 2008.
Mearsheimer is pessimistic because Hillary, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are all relatively cautious leaders who try to avoid big stakes confrontations.
But withdrawal from Iraq is not going to require a huge confrontation. Consequently, the Democrats are a good bet to get it done when they take over in 2009.
Posts
8 comments:
Apparently you think far too highly of Harry Reid and "does this habbiya make me look fat?' Pelosi.
You don't think they'd wind down the war?
Fact Check:
The American Political Science Association (APSA) is meeting in Chicago,IL not Washington.
"Cautious leaders who try to avoid big stakes confrontations", are exactly the kind of leaders required at times like these. The White House has been anything but cautious since they started us down this long dreary road. Republican leaders showed no caution in throwing all their power to declare war away. I welcome the caution of Hillary and Barak. The pragmatism and leadership of Pelosi and Reid.
There is a time and a place for the idealists and there is a place for the cool-headed leadership of seasoned lawmakers. Now is the time for cool heads to prevail.
The White House accuses Democrats of trying to micromanage the Iraqi conflict, then says Congressional Democrats should have their own plan. They accuse the leaders of my party of dishonoring our fallen heroes, but then offer no strategy for honoring them other than to simply send more brave soldiers in their place.
They talk about victory and defeat while virtually everyone agrees that we could never identify either.
They say a time table is tantamount to surrender.
What no one gets from the White House are any reasons to believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The surge has not increased the odds of our success.
We are certainly no closer to eliminating the threat of terrorism, and despite the claims of the Administration, the United States is not enhancing its image around the world as the beacon of freedom. Far from it.
We on the left care deeply about the international reputation of our country.
House and Senate Democrats are committed to natioal security. I personally am ever grateful for the brilliant and brave men and women who serve in our nation's armed forces.
It is because Democrats honor our troops that we oppose this occupation and seek to end it in a responsible manner. And Democrats will begin to end it after Hillary, or Barak, or John is innagurated in January, 2009.
Allow me to leave the eloquent words of Reverend Jesse Jackson as well.
The Choice
By Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr
9/3/2007 © Tribune Media Services
This nation faces a clear choice this September. President Bush will insist that the Congress continue the war in Iraq and demand another $50 billion for the occupation. That is on top of the $147 billion already pending for Iraq and Afghanistan this year, and that’s on top of the $460 billion annual military budget. The US will spend about as much as the rest of the world combined on its military this year.
At the same time, the President vows to veto any spending on domestic programs that exceeds his budget. He’s threatened to veto any increases for children’s health care (even as more children go without health insurance), for college loans and scholarships, for public schools, for renewable energy, for basic infrastructure. The difference between the president’s budget and that of the Congress is about $20 billion. The president says that’s a lot of money – over “$1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour.” His request for Iraq this year is about eight times greater, or $10,400 every second of every hour. The total estimated cost of Iraq now exceeds $1 trillion, and rising.
Democrats in the Congress are virtually unanimous in wanting to get US troops out of the civil war in Iraq. Republicans waited for the reports of General Patraes, the intelligence agencies, the GAO and independent commissions – all due this month. The reports, no doubt, will differ, with the administration claiming progress and others more skeptical. Supporters of the war will see the glass half full; opponents half empty.
But there really isn’t much difference in fact. Occupation of a country is hard, costly and deadly. General Patraes has said from the beginning that it will take 10-20 years to pacify Iraq, to rebuild it, and to create a functioning democracy there. If all goes well, that would raise the cost of Iraq to over $2 trillion and over 6000 American lives. A lot more than $20 billion in this year’s domestic budget will be sacrificed to bear those costs.
Already we see the domestic costs of this war and our continuing commitment to police the world. A bridge falls in Minneapolis. An aged sewage valve breaks and terrorizes Manhattan. The levies are still not rebuilt to the needed strength in New Orleans. College is getting priced out of reach of working families. Our schools grow older, more crowded and more in need of repair. Our transportation system – from airports to roads to subways – cries out for investment. Our broadband system is the slowest in the industrial world. Our park facilities are in disrepair. America’s domestic investment deficit is strangling opportunity.
In Iraq, the US has a three point plan. Stop the flow of guns and secure the streets. Consolidate a democracy. Invest in vital infrastructure and put Iraqis to work. The US could use that three point plan too. It would be a lot more cost effective here since we’re not yet in the midst of sectarian civil strife.
The choice this September isn’t really about Iraq – it is about the US. Like Rome and Britain and the USSR before us, we face a choice – empire or Republic? We can police the streets of Baghdad, patrol the seas, guard the borders of Korea and Bosnia, build a new generation of more deadly nuclear and space weaponry – or we can invest here at home in areas vital to our social and economic health and well-being. We can be the globocop or the city on the hill – but we can’t be both.
cutnpaste strikes again
"The Choice
By Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr
9/3/2007 © Tribune Media Services"
Todd is hooked up, ya'll.
European or american date? After 3 years in England and military time, the American way of writing dates drives me nuts. That date is ambiguous and could be, by american reckoning sep 03 2007, which would indeed, show cutnpaste has some solid sources. Or, it's written in an ascending order that makes sense, like the europeans do, and means it's from 9 march 2007. Had I not downed six blissful Fat Tire Ales, I may be inclined to look the piece up and figure it outl
Post a Comment