Redstate

...who press the Vietnam analogy forget that the winners were sponsored by regimes that almost immediately (and for unrelated reasons) started falling out of the game.

It's a commonplace of left-wing analysis that our adventure in Vietnam was ill-advised because the Domino Theory was wrong. But we don't actually know how the Domino Theory would have played out because in the years after Vietnam, the USSR started their disaster in Afghanistan and China converted away from expansionism after the death of Mao.

In Iraq, by contrast, the troublemakers are sponsored by at least one regime (Iran) that is aggressive, on the ascendant, and not likely to be contained by us, given current political realities here.

I found, during research on another post, an article by the leader of Indonesia, who explained that the Domino Theory was correst. He pointed out that at the end of the 50s communist insurgencies were developing throughout the region. He said that the governments of those nations were not ready to defend themselves. It was the US intervention in Vietnam that allowed the rest of the nations in the area, in his case Indonesia, the time to confront those insurgencies and beat them back. By forcing the Russians and Chinese to concentrate all of their resources in Vietnam, the rest of the region was allowed the time they needed. Had the US not fought in Vietnam, I is convinced that Communism would have marched across the entire region unchecked.

don't ask for the link, I posted the link months ago, somewhere, and probably will never find it again! :-)
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Re: In Iraq, by contrast, the troublemakers are sponsored by at least one regime (Iran) that is aggressive, on the ascendant, and not likely to be contained by us, given current political realities here.

The Iranian regieme however is far weaker than either the Soviet Union or Red China were. In fact, I would hazzard a guess that Iran is weaker than even North Vietnam was. Moreover Iran is isolated in a way that neither the USSR or China were: Iran is the sole Shi'ite nation; it has no ideological allies anywhere. And while Communism had a perverse appeal to peoples worldwide, backward-looking Islamism has no appeal beyond its own backyard, and even there it is not entirely beloved.
Isolate Iran for a generation or too and it will fizzle out just as the Russians did (or, less likely, reform itself as the Chinese have)

With the Russian Empire you could reasonably assign the attribute of rational actor to them. The Russians view themselves as part of the west and western tradition (and correctly). Can you say anything like that about Iran ? At least post Alexander.

not of the USSR but of China (but smaller and weaker). There seems to be a strange amnesia these days about Communist tyranny, but in fact old Chairman Mao stands in the front ranks (with Hitler and Stalin) of the Tyrants Hall of Horrors. Here was a man after all who murdered tens of millions, who kept his country in a state of permanent revolution, whose closest cronies never knew when they might be hauled off to an unmarked grave, who, with nukes of his own, openly bragged that China would easily survive a nuclear war. Compared to Mao the Iranian mullahs are a bunch of harem girls.
But when push came to shove Mao, though a champion megalomaniac, kept his nukes under lock and key. His darling Red Guards were not allowed to play with those toys, nor sis he hand them out the back door to the Vietcong, the Khmer Rouge, or any other of his fawning terrorist admirers. why? Because getting his country destoyed (despite his boast) was no part of his agenda. He wanted to make China the center of a Marxist universe. The Iranians want something similar: a revival of the old Persian Empire (with Shi'ite Islam triumphant of course) that once ruled from the Nile to the Indus. That's been the Iranian project since the Shah was in power (though he wanted to create Iran Uber Alles with American help and minus the Islamism). Getting their country destroyed is no part of that plan. If they get a few nukes they will use then to idemnify themselves against regime change and as sabers to rattle when they want to cow their neighbors and scare off a disapproving world. But they will no more use them literally than Mao or anyone else has since Hiroshima showed us what these weapons really do.

They really don't believe in the 12th Imam at all then, do they? Do they really believe in Allah, and Muhammad and Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb? Paradise? Are they really just materialists after all, simply seeking present power, wealth and fame? In that case, perhaps Mao is a very appropriate analogue.
John E.

There have been any number of rulers and leaders who have held sincere religious beliefs. Indeed, your comment weirdly mirrors the fears of the Left about George Bush's religiosty and the Christian doctrine of the End Times. Are you trying to say that religious people are inherently unfit for pubblic office? That people who believe in God and the eschatological promises of Scripture are dangerous lunatics?
No, there have been plenty of religious leaders (including those who saw themselves as God's anointed on a mission) and I certainly agree that when these guys get out of line they need to forced back into order. What I don't agree with is the degree of panic over the matter and the incredible exaggeration of a nation that is barely a third rate regional power. Indeed, Iran is only powerful at all because A) it has oil and B) everyone else in that neck of the woods is even weaker. If you took away the oil and set Iran down in the middle of Eastern Asia we'd be laughing at the country's pretensions to greatness.

Aleks, you are doubtless a studious historian. I learn from your facts. I am in disagreement with your judgments. You unnecessarily mischaracterize me by analogizing my comments with the Left. We both know the distinction between theocrats who inseparably join politics and religion as traditional Islamists are doing, and religious Western leaders. Such a diversion is tediously argumentative and if that is the course of the dialogue I am going to punt.

If you could show me that Iranian leaders were not motivated by firm conviction that Allah has put them on the course laid out by Muhammad, but rather a more temporal one akin to Mao, Stalin or whatever other tyrant you like, then I could be more receptive to your chill down council. To get to me, that is the nut you have to crack. As I see it, the Muhammad element leads them into an entirely different way of thinking, one which you are failing to take into account.

Medina was nothing compared to any of the great centers of culture in 630ace. Behold the power of an idea strongly believed.

John E.

Re: We both know the distinction between theocrats who inseparably join politics and religion as traditional Islamists are doing, and religious Western leaders.

Religious western leaders today -- I agree. Nothing like Islamic theocracy is brewing anywhere else on the globe.
But I was also speaking also about religious Christian (or Hindu, Shinto, Jewish etc.) leaders of the past. In our past we have indeed seen the sorts of rulers who fancied their nations as God's Chosen Realm, and their own selves as God's anointed. "God and Spain" or "God and France" or "Holy Mother Russia" or the "God-defended City". I would not care to deal with Philip II or Louis XIV or any of the old Russian tsars and Byzantine emperors today. But were these guys "irrational"? If you mean, did they believe erroneous things, then, yes, they did. But did that make them nutcases so that they led their nations into ruin wide-eyed and deliberately? The closest thing in history I find to that would be King Sebastian of Portugal's attack on Morocco (he and his whole army were destroyed, a result which was easy to predict.) But otherwise would-be messiah-kings of the past never went so far as that: when defeat stung them (Spanish Armada; Russo-Japanese War, etc.) they, bitterly and with much wailing, resigned themselves to it and certainly did not throw their own lives away in a fit of holy pique. Even a few who probably were clinically insane (Ivan the Terrible in his last years or, for a Muslim example, Selim the Sot) were ultimately restrained by either some relict of common sense or else by wiser advisors. In a very few cases nutcase leaders veering off course into disaster have even been deposed (Michael the Drunkard of Byzantium; Henry VI of England).
So however devout or even fanatical the Iranian Mullahs may be, I don't see them as being any different from past devout or fanatical rulers who confused national greatness and religious mission. They can, I believe, be kept in check-- not, to be sure, by diplomacy alone, no we will need to engage them from time to time to remind them that they are dealing with forces far more powerful than their own. But unless you think they really are on a mission from God, and can rely on help from Above, they are so much weaker than the forces opposing them that I see no reason to fear them beyond their proper stature.

That is a really great reply and a good history lesson ta boot. And I am not in your league when it comes to history. When I finished reading that I felt my fears significantly chilled. Simplifying, there have been 1300 years of Muslim leaders who conquered many but not all. Few engaged in irrationally destructive conflict. The West has successfully kept them in check and will easily continue to do so. We isolate, they evaporate.

Then I remember that in their calculus martyrdom in jihad is glorious. Death in the course of jihad is ok because Allah will sort it out. (BTW, I think this is the difference, often referred to as irrational, between them and the others, which others were more like us in their view of life/death). What is the logic of those ideas as applied to WMD? To asymetrical warfare? What happens if 1.3 billion people catch the wave? And for the shites, what if some guy comes along who they believe is the 12th Imam? And I start worrying again. Muhammad's plan has overcome long odds in the past. It is not dead. It is not discredited. It, Islam is the answer, still seems very dangerous to me. You know all about it. Yet you seem to consider it inert, impotent. Is it history that should be forcing me to that conclusion?

John E.

First I don't buy your equivalence of Iran with China. Second my point was comparing a post Stalinist Russia with a current Iran to highlight the differences.

Seeing as you wish to compare totalitarian regimes you need to compare Iran to Stalinist Russia. Stalin did not buy into your fear of atomic retaliation anymore than the mullahs do. Stalin knew that atomic attacks from the west would do less damage than his country had endured in WWII. Stalin was willing to endure atomic attack on Russian soil if it meant he could conquer Europe and before his death he was getting ready to do just that. The Iranians have suicide brigades whose job is to be human smart (or dumb depending on perspective) weapons. If they are willing to send their children off to explode do you think they wouldn't send bombs ?

Now lets take on the Iran equals China portion. This just doesn't hold up. China has acted very astutely in achieving its goals. The invasion of Tibet was effective and surprisingly economical for a communist power. In korea they chose to fight us through a proxy not directly. This secured tactical and strategic advantages for them while allowing them to control the drain on their resources. They have avoided direct conflict over Taiwan preferring to use soft pressure to bring them in line. In the case of Hong Kong they decided it was better to just be patient. Iran shows none of Chinas restraint or practicality.

What you are basing your argument on is that the Iranian Mullahs are sane and Rational and are out to use rational means to achieve their goals. This is at best questionable. To demonstrate what I mean lets consider what their goals are. The Iranians want to establish a theocracy of roughly the size and scope of the old Caliphate. They also seek the death of all Jews and the subjugation into a slave class of all non believers.

The above are Irans stated goals. Do I believe them, YES !!!. They are not rational goals. Most people would consider them not particularly desirable goals but these people have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of these goals. Achmadinajad is believed to be part of the group that seized the US embassy. There is no doubt in my mind, that when he says he is going to do something stupid he means it.

If someone told you Hitlers stated goals in 1937 you would have been a fool not believe he meant what he said. Do you doubt that Stalin wanted Europe under his boot ? Do you doubt Mao wanted Asia under his thumb ? If someone states publicly they are out to kill you and yours you ignore or discount it at your own peril.

Re: What you are basing your argument on is that the Iranian Mullahs are sane and Rational and are out to use rational means to achieve their goals.

Well, I see no evidence that the Mullahs are insane in any clinical sense. I doubt they hear voices, have hallucinations, etc. They are not schizophrenic. And within their framework of belief they are also rational. That is, grant the axioms of their religion and give them wide latitude for ambition, and their policy is "reasonable". It seems unreasonable to us because we do not share their religion. Even so a hardcore atheist would say George W Bush is irrantional for believing in the Christian "fable". (And you need only visit some lefty blogs to see that sort of analysis made, mirroring exactly what you are seeing said about the Iranians here).
Moroever I believe that the Mullahs are as desirous of personal wealth and power as they are of aggrandizing their nation and furthering Allah's goals as they see them. It's a very rare ruler who isn't seduced by their perquisities of office. Even Mao and Stalin were. And everything have done and are doing bespeaks of a very long term stratetgy-- not some blaze of glory Gotterdammerung war that you folks seem to fear. Even Hitler wasn't plotting that until the very end when he was utterly beaten and he gave orders (ignored by the way) to raze Germany to the bedrock as the allies advanced. Maybe if the Mullahs were indeed facing utter defeat they would go that route (but would they be obeyed? Der Fuehrer was not). But as long as we allow them a certain space to fantasize and to feather their nests they will not be suicidal. Their vision is God and Iran, not God and a radioactive wasteland.
Again too let me emphasize that I am not arguing for complacency and pacifism. Only against panic and hysteria. And I propose we meet this threat as we would any other coming from a rather muddled, weak but boundlessly ambitious nation.

This is not to be argumentative. I agree with you that they are acting on their premises and within a logical scope. The problem is that the results show that the premises are way off.

Yes I agree that they are interested increasing their wealth and personal power, but within a limited framework. They want it within the framework of the Caliphate.

From the observed actions they are willing to risk upwards of 90% of their supporting population and possibly the existence of the human race to achieve their goals. This is a very big claim so let me provide the evidence to back it up.

They have once taken actions that should have provoked full scale war with the united states. The seizure of the US embassy was an act of war. Carter did not treat it as such doing an incredible amount of damage to our prestige and perhaps even sovereignty. Anyone if asked a priori would have told them to expect the B-52 s to come raining death down on them.You can only surmise they were willing to accept that.

During the Iran-Iraq war they threw away 2 percent of their population in suicide attacks against Iraq. The primary method of such attacks was to charge the Iraqi positions until they ran out of ammunition. The only rational explanation for such military stupidity is that all religious protests to the contrary the mullahs are engaging in eugenics. I need to reiterate sacrificing your life for a higher purpose can be a noble action throwing it away catching bullets to exhaust the enemies magazine is not.

If Iran did know about 9/11 in advance they participated once again in what could only be considered a full out attack on the US.

You state that they aren't plotting the Gotterdammerung well they certainly are doing a lot of talking about bringing out the hidden Imam and starting the endtimes. It seems to be one their preferred goals.

Now as I said I don't know what their premises are. Their actions are clearly sociopathic. At the very least they show evidence of a mania.

I will go back to my prior post. Post Stalinist Russia was an actor that could be reasoned with for awhile. As long as reasonable people were in charge of that state things could work out. If they had of gotten another Stalin it would have been the end of the world. Iran is in a state analogous to Stalinist Russia. The state can and will make any demand imaginable on the citizens and either be able to be obeyed or force itself to be obeyed.

If Iran gets the bomb the game changes to one where every time the dice are thrown the stakes are everything. Everything there is and everything there ever will be. That is the way this has to be looked at. Untill there is some change in Iran that proves they are all of a sudden sane there is no choice.

Re: Yes I agree that they are interested increasing their wealth and personal power, but within a limited framework. They want it within the framework of the Caliphate.

On this much at least I have to disagree: Shi'a Islam is NOT looking for a Caliphate. That's a fundamentalist Sunni goal. Shi'a regards the Caliphate as an escahatological and rather mystical matter, not to be realized in this world. More or less as we Christians regard the kingship of Jesus Christ-- none of us would propose nominating anyone as "Jesus on Earth" even if we had some rulers in the far past who liked to pretend they were something like that.
No, Iran is looking to make Iran the regional hegemon of the Middle East, a new Persian Empire stretching from North Africa to the borders of India and China. And yes, they would like to see the Shi'a faith finally triumph over the Sunni majority whom they regard as heretical (as mutually so). Indeed, this latter points to a serious division in the Muslim world and one we ought think about exploiting as we once exploited the Russia-China rift in Communism.

Re: During the Iran-Iraq war they threw away 2 percent of their population in suicide attacks against Iraq.

This sort of grim tactic is found among desperately embattled people everywhere and does not point to suicidalism in general once the danger is gone. Hitler sent boys out to fight and be killed in the final weeks of WWII, and the CSA did likewise in 1865 (to the horror of Union troops who found themselves slaughtering 12 year olds). Neither Germany nor the American South are suicidally dangerous today however.

Re: Their actions are clearly sociopathic. At the very least they show evidence of a mania.

I agree. Most fiercely ambitious imperialists are sociopathic to some degree: Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler and all the rest. Anyone how thinks he can conquer the world in not a normal human being. But that does not such a person invulerable or invincible. Even Achilles had his heel; and Iran is mostly heel and little muscle. Perhaps this is where we disagree: I don't doiubt the Iranian leaders have fierce ambitions. What I doubt is they have the means to accomplish them. And no, nukes are not such a means, or else the hammer and sickle would be flying in Peoria and we'd be booking May Day pilgrimmages to Moscow to admire Lenin in his glass coffin. (Whether the Soviets were sane or not is irrelevant; what is relevant is that our nation, in the long haul, proved stronger, in every way, than theirs-- do you think we are not stronger than Iran?)

Re: You state that they aren't plotting the Gotterdammerung well they certainly are doing a lot of talking about bringing out the hidden Imam and starting the endtimes.

I don't think the Muslim version of the End Times is any more amenable to human scheduling than the Christian one is. Though to be sure we have some people in this country who talk as if they could hasten Jesus' return. But indeed, if you take seriously all rhetoric (including stuff whose translations I would not trust given the abysmal language skills in our country) we should be many times dead and ruined long, long ago according to the bragging of our foes. Remember the "Mother of all battles" and the rest of Saddam's rants?

Re: If they had of gotten another Stalin it would have been the end of the world.

Actually, no. It would been the end, much more swiftly, of the Soviet Union as a Stalin II would have run the place into the ground far faster than the milquetoasts who followed after.

Achmadinejad has state he wants to march to babylon and reestablish the caliphate. His words not mine.

Yes human wave attacks are indicative of desperate regimes, in Irans case this was practically the prime strategy . Both of your examples are defeated which is why they are no longer a problem. Iran can't be described as desperate today but the Martyrs brigade is still promoted and a primary weapon. If the south had won would they still be forming 12 year olds into cannon fodder ?

And genius is close to madness. Its a myth. For everyone of your megalomaniacs I can give you one that wasn't. Was President Polk a Raving Loon ? President Jefferson ? Eisenhower the man that did liberate Europe ? Churchil ?

It still belabors the point madmen are running Iran and they need to be treated as such. Madmen with nukes a very bad idea.

Remember the Mother of all Battles ? Yes what I remember is Saddam did not have the means. Iran will if it gains nukes.

Stalin II would at the very least have started the war in Europe. You are correct that he would have ended the former soviet union the question is how much else would have come along with it.

of the European-Christian tradition (not necessarily "Western"), but I'm not sure the relevance of your point there. There have been Western nations that have behaved irrationally (Nazi Germany) and non-Western nations (Japan, India etc.) that behave rationally. In fact, may I ask your defintion of "rational"? You seem to be using it in a way that supposes that it is not in fact a core human faculty, but exists only in European nations, which is demonstrably false.
I think this debate neesd to start over from first principles else we are not talking about the same thing at all.
Now, I hold no affection for the Mullahs of Iran. They are theocrats and thugs, tyrannzing their own people and no doubt they have ambitions beyond their own borders. Indeed, as I have posted I see an Iran that would like to create a modern, Shi'ite version of the old Persian Empire (a long time ambition of that nation, with or without the religious overtones), ruling the Middle East as the Achaemenid dynasty once did. In this regard Iran resembles Tsarist Russia or 16th century Spain: a nation greedy for empire and imbued with a religious sense of its mission to achieve that empire. That does not make the mullahs "nuts"; it just makes them, well, fiercely ambitious and imperialistic. Is imperialism irrational? I don't think so.
What I don't see is any cause for irrational hysteria on our part. Illiberal empires and wanna-be nationalist hegemons are a regular part of world history. We have faced them before and we will continue to face such for a long time to come (and pray God we never become such a nation ourselves). I see no reason at all why Iran cannot be met with the same strategies with which similar such nations have been countered in the past-- which certainly may involve military action when necessary, but will also involve lots of hard ball diplomacy. In Iran's case there are very few other nations who would sign onto the Iranian project; we have no shortage of potential allies in the matter, even in the Middle East itself. The Iranian nation has selfish interests (some of which we must indeed oppose) and we can use those interests as a handle against Iran if it gets out of line. Eventually, if history is any guide, the whole mess will fall apart under its weight, as other such ambitious nations have collapsed (Habsburg Spain, Tsarist Russia, the USSR, the Ottoman Empire, the original Muslim Caliphate-- and these last two listed to show that Islam gains no one an exemption from history or reality)

the man's proper title is President Bush. Anything less is disrespect for the office. Yes, even former President Clinton should be shown honor, if only for the office he held.

Sorry, its an issue with me, showing respect for our President.
See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

"The road to freedom is seldom traveled by the multitude"Madhouse Thought

to leave off the title

allow me to spin an entirely plausible, if not likely, scenerio:

A Democrat congress repeats history (1974) and de-funds all operations in SW Asia effective some date certain (let's pick July 4th just to be insanely ironic). Bush has a choice to sign the bill - which he is of course disinclined to do - or veto the bill. The congress will almost certainly not be able to find the votes to override and so we have gridlock.

Until the current spending authority runs out, that is.

So ask yourself the following - given the thumping he and his party took last week, is George Bush willing to shut the government down over Iraq?

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

This is a principle he needs to stand on! Backbone...meet the President. Mr President....meet backbone!

See The World In HinzSight!
Political HinzSight

Are the Democrats, having become totally convinced that the shutdown in 1996 was their path to victory, willing to shut it down? I think the answer is an emphatic yes. It's the Democrats who have the cards here. I can't see the President shutting down the government, and even if I could, I can certainly see him wussing out a couple weeks later in exchange for any face saving gesture by the Congress.

What is the status of funding for the Iraq war? When do they run out of money? Will they even last till the next FY?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me that is a headline Dems prefer to avoid.
John E.

You must be joking. Any predictions of MSM backlash involving anything the Dems do has to be a joke. Do you think the NYT would let us buy ad space on the front page to run a fake headline? I suspect not. Too bad, because that's the only way you will ever see a headline like that.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Exactly how would the MSM spin it that wouldn't be transparently false?
John E.

or... "Democrats save lives of seniors with new benefit program"

IOW there would be no headline about the war if it is negative...let me correct that, if it negatively affects democrats. it would just quietly happen.

Do you remember any headlines about cuts in the military during the Clinton years?

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

I would support shutting down government over this issue. I can't say what he would do, but only what I would want him to do. Not all democrats, Lieberman for example, would vote to defund either. How many Republicans in the Senate would vote to defund? Do you really think a defunding vote so likely that we have to assume it as a fact which guides our present decision making?
John E.

If the House refuses to authorize funds for the war, and they may even have the votes there to do just that if the leadership got behind it, they are done. The Senate doesn't have anything to say about it. If we end up needing a supplemental early next year to fund the war, they can simply refuse to authorize one and there isn't a thing anybody, including the President, can do about it.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Is there any government shutdown involved in this scenario? Or is the headline simply that House unilaterally denies funding for the military?
John E.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Dennis Kucinich is a laughingstock, a straw man for people like us (the Democrats seem to elect a number of these individuals). Even those opposed to this war know that the minute any sizable number voted to defund they'd be exiling themselves and their party to the political wilderness for a decade at least. The conduct of the Iraq War may be unpopular, but there's a reason "cut and run" is still an epithet and not a badge of honor.

In the reasonableness of the Democrats in the position to do something about it (such as Murtha and Pelosi) as you obviously do.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

but for all the drivel about Pelosi being a "San Fransisco liberal" she is, first and foremost, a power-hungry, cutthroat politician. And aside from any confidence I might have in the handful of Blue Dog Democrats I have a good deal more in the refusal of the power-hungry among them to place their principles over their ambition.

> If we end up needing a supplemental early next year to fund the war, they can simply refuse to authorize one and there isn't a thing anybody, including the President, can do about it.

Not true at all. The war funding could be attached to any other piece of must-pass legislation. The republicans would end up with an old fashioned filibuster with no legislation passing until the democrats allow a vote on the war funding.

As I said in another note, this would never go that far anyway, and never has. The only way a war is defunded is if the anti-war side has the 2/3 vote to override the president's veto. The end result of trying, as I point out above, is gridlock.

It also is a totally theoretical fantasy about as realistic at this moment as democrats outlawing social security. The votes are not there, not even for a symbolic sense of congress to get out in 4 to 6 months which has no effect at all.

Who exactly is going to attach the war funding to other legislation? The Pelosi Democrats? We don't have the votes to do that, even if the Pelosi-run House even LETS us have the privilege of putting amendments on things.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

If the democrats refuse to allow amendment, then every bill is filibustered or vetoed until they do.

Once they allow us to amend, then we have our vote. So it is not true that the Democrats can prevent us from voting on the war.

Whether we have a majority is another story, but wasn't what the discussion was about.

This also means that even if we didn't have a majority against the war, that we could gridlock the government and force shutdowns until either we or the democrats give in. That's why in real life it takes a 2/3 vote to shut off funding of a war. That's fits the political situation too because no one would dare to shut down a war on a 51%-49% vote. Only if most of the country had turned against it could defunding come.

At present the democratic leadership has unanimously said they won't try to block any Iraq funding.

Even if the Senate wanted to, they can try to fund the war all day long and it doesn't really matter. The House has to add it to the legislation as well, or it has to be agreed upon in conference. Neither of those things can be done by a minority. Stuff that gets added on by only the Senate or only the House, especially to an unrelated bill, gets stripped in conference all the time.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

is entirely likely if not a certainty - the Majority's base will demand it, SanFran Nan is inclined to give it to them, and the vehicle (the appropriately named McGovern Ammendment) is aready in place.

I think it's passage is hardly assured (could narrowly pass the House but probably only has about 40 of the 60 votes needed to get out of the Senate) but it's chances are hardly non-zero. That you're seeming to suggest such a bill passing as being implausible I really cannot find any point on which to argue - other than to mention that any bill that can pass the House and has upwards of 40 Senators in support certainly has a chance of landing on the CinC's desk, in some form, sooner or later.

And I didn't ask what you would support - I asked what you though Bush would do. I'm still waiting for that answer.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Ok. I'll try to answer that, although I really do think my first response is the legitimate one, :) because I don't and can't know in any absolute terms any better than you what he would actually do.

Disclosure: I am one of the few who still like W., believe in W. and support W. (The same should be said regarding Rummy). At root that is the most likely source of my feeling that he would do what I would do.

Regarding the GWOT and Iraq he has been a rock until now. His willingness to listen and the politics of changing the SoD does not give me the willies, because I don't think he is going to give up on his (strongly articulated) core convictions. Listening for corrections is a good thing. Playing to polls for approval is a bad thing. The latter is not in his nature, and I hope the former is or is become part of his character. A man afraid of conflict does not give the order on two preemptive wars. The dearth of vetoes has explanations in party dynamics. We need strong leadership so I am going to continue to support him. I'll defend him here or at DKos.

It seems to me that some have assumed that the election makes it inevitable that the country is going to declare defeat in Iraq so we might as well get out right now. If it were inevitable then I would agree. But the clearest argument offered for inevitability is this defunding idea. It is possible, but I don't think it is so likely that we should be throwing in the towel just now. It is just not a sound basis for advocating a decision of that import. The possibility of such a vote and the likelihood of its success are very different things when it comes to drawing such a conclusion.
John E.

... but the way GWB threw Rummy under the bus does not exactly fill me with confidence.

Additionally,

It seems to me that some have assumed that the election makes it inevitable that the country is going to declare defeat in Iraq so we might as well get out right now.

I would submit that:
1) the country has declared defeat in Iraq already,
2) further confirmation by our new elected Majority is therefore a mere formality, and
3) the drumbeat for us to "get out right now" will only get louder and spill-over from the fevered moonbat fringes to middle-America certainly befrore the summer.

And unless I'm misreading - possible today given how it's going - you seem to be asserting this is what I want to happen. Without going into details, nothing could be further from the truth. But I do happen to think this course of (in)action is inevitable - history and it's propensity for sequels being what it is.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Sacrificing Rummy is not a confidence builder. It is also not necessarily the same as giving up.

Let me tell you plainly that this chorus of concession to inevitability has me very irked. I have words for this choir.

Continue to fight for what you want to happen. If the country has spoken as you say, which is debatable, we must continue to try to change their minds. Our system of government is full of formalities that can be raised as impediments to declaring defeat. The 'get out now' drum beat needs to be drummed out.

Look. Suppose Nancy is driving a car and my brother & I are in it along with Jack and Harry. We tell Nancy not to take a certain turn because it leads off a cliff but Nancy, Jack and Harry all say it is the best route and so she takes it anyway. I am going to do every possible thing I can do to stop that car and turn it around. Is my brother going to just sit back and say that it is now inevitable that we are all going to die and it is all their fault? He may look forward to some 'I told you so' satisfaction in that. But whether or not I get the car turned by myself, in my book my brother is more to blame than they are. He could have helped but instead, for absurd reasons, chose to play the victim.

My bottom line is this. Without clear proof that the outcome is inevitable, why give legitimacy to the notion of giving up? That is a Pygmalion Effect for the Dems. Beyond that it is either passive-aggressive or 'the devil made me do it.' And there seems to be no shortage of imputed devils: electoral, Congressional, and presidential.

John E.

The neat thing about it is, the House doesn't even have to HAVE a vote on defunding the war. They just have have to NOT have a vote on funding the war.

That's the House of Representatives in action: raw, immediate passion.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

The democrats only have a 51% majority in the senate and 54% in the house, meaning republicans have 49% and 46% respectively, massively more than the 33% needed to sustain a Bush veto.

Not all democrats favor withdrawal anyway. Last year the vast majority of democrats voted against mandatory withdrawal, and six democratic senators wouldn't even vote for a symbolic call for withdrawal in 4 to 6 months that wouldn't have controlled the president.

Also everyone in the democratic leadership has said repeatedly and recently that they are not going to cut spending to Iraq. Some democrats, including the leadership have said that they don't even support withdrawing any troops unless the military says so.

Given that the top US General said today that we shouldn't even set a timetable for withdrawal, there is no chance of funds for the war being cut.

www.scottbomb.com

about what the Democrats would do, I will note the following:

1. The vote in '74 was to deny aid to the South, not to defund US troops in the field.

2. There is SUBSTANTIAL disagreement even among the liberal left that getting out immediately is the right thing to do. A prominant DKOS poster had a diary entitled get out now a few days ago. The reaction was more muted than you might guess.

3. I do not believe that a vote to defund the troops would carry in the House today.

Most of the posts on the War here today have been interesting, but in the end have missed the mark. They are too focused on the Vietnam analogy. Vietnam has never been the right analogy for this war (though in fact I think it has guided much of Rumsfeld's thinking, with tragic results).

The right analogy is Yugoslavia. I do not want to wear out my welcome here, but the origin of Yugoslavia itself has lessons that can be applied in Iraq. If you apply that analogy then those advocating withdrawl from Iraq must explain how the Iraqi equivelent of Bosnia and Herzegovina can be avoided. In fact, the Iraqi case is more complicated than even Yugoslavia given the outside interests involved in the ethnic conflict, suggesting an outsome more resembling Nazi Germany is possible.

There are more than a few like myself who opposed this war at the start (and I am certain I was right in that opposition) who have concerns about an immediate withdrawl. That angst (there is no other word for it) will prevent the Democrats from defunding the War until a convincing answer to the Yugoslavian analogy can be found.

Especially if the point was to suggest that strategy employed is inappropriate.

Location
Iraq: In the most strategic spot in the world.

Yugoslavia: World War 1 ended nearly a century ago. So Not so much.

US National Interest
Iraq: Hmmm, Oil, containing Iran, Helping allies in the region, preventing attacks on our soil, Denying a haven to terrorists, eliminating a major sponsor of terrorism.

Yugoslavia: Is it world war I again ? Oops sorry even then it was European interests not ours.

Geopolitics:
Iraq: Allows us to promote our ideals of democracy and freedom in an area that is actively rejecting them. Allows us to surround our major enemies in the area.

Yugoslavia: Is it world war I again ? Is the cold war still on ? Why are we there again ? Oh yes like World War I, II, and the cold war the Europeans have managed to let a mess happen again.

Now if you want to say Yugoslavia, Is like Vietnam I could give you that. In both cases we got involved in a war due to a european screw up. In both cases if we lost the side we were opposing would liquidate the side we were helping. In both cases the rational for staying was to show the europeans that we would.

I took the comparison to be regarding ethnic cleansing, massacre, although I am not sure why Vietnam should not be recognized for that effect as well. fladem is right to realize responsibility for the slaughter that might be a direct consequence of our premature withdrawal.
John E.

In Nam we had an obligation to those that gave us aid. In Iraq we are trying to build a model that will be replicated. The only point in time that ethnic cleansing in yugoslavia became our problem was when agreed to take ownership of the problem.

I do agree that all three had one thing in common, failure results in a bloodbath.

> Vietnam has never been the right analogy for this war

I couldn't agree more. It's hard to think of two situations more different that Iraq and Vietnam. Indeed I think one of the problems with Iraq is that it is more like Afghanistan, but some are pushing us to fight it like Vietnam.

The contrasts are massive. In vietnam it was a war between our ideology and the enemy ideology, communism vs. capitalism. This led us to take sides in the civil war, which gave us a government to support and an enemy which we could attack.

By contrast all the parties in Iraq are Islamic, but none of them are Islamic terrorists / Islamists / Islamofascists. Our position in Iraq then is to not take sides between the Sunnis / Shiites / Kurds, but be fair to all. This means that in Iraq we have no allies to defend and no enemy to kill.

In Vietnam our goal was to prop up their capitalist government. In Iraq our written goals were to enforce the UN resolutions and to remove the threat to the united states.

in 1974 the Congress cut off all funding in support of military operations in Southeast Asia. As a result when the NVA kicked off their final offensive in 1975 we could not provide air strikes even independently of the ARVN. Please, don't rewrite history.

As to Yugoslavia, IMHO that policy was and remains an abject failure. Jihadis train in Bosnia and Kosovo and carried out a deliberate program of marrying Bosnian and Kosovar muslim women so they cannot be deported. Kosovo is a kleptocracy on a good day. But brushing away the facts for the sake of discussion we are left with the stunning situation where we have spent over a decade in an unsuccessful effort to bring stability and self-government and civil society to Bosnia and Kosovo where the final outcome was a geopolitical null set and are apparently unwilling to spend anywhere near that amount of time in Iraq where the stakes are incredibly high.

Bush has been referred to on these pages (if I can use that Old Media term) as the Occasional Communicator. I think that your analysis about the impact of the inept White House media operation on this (and a lot of other) topic is on target.

One has to think that had Tony Snow been at that post instead of Ari Fleischer and the hapless Scott McClellan things might be perceived differently now.

"My biggest problem with this Administration has been its failure of marketing. Instead of preparing us for a long fight, the President et al continued to treat every bit of news as a turning point and assuring us that victory hinged on this or that benchmark."

IMHO, the biggest problem with this administration is that it vastly underestimated the difficulty of the goals it was trying to attain. The concept of establishing a stable pro-western democratic oil rich state in the Middle East should have been seen for the immense undertaking that it was

This is the kind of project that calls for a sustained national focus, unity, and sacrifice that President Bush never had the foresight or political courage to ask for. He and his advisors did not see (or want to see) the need for many many more troops and funding. In order to pull this off correctly he may well have had to re-institute a draft and raise taxes.

Now of course, his political instincts rebelled against both of these options, so he chose to ignore what he needed to do (draft and tax) in order to do what he wanted to do (re-invent Iraq). These failures are much more than a failure of "marketing"...they are failures at assessing and planning for war. Our nation and the world will pay the price for his failures now as we search for a way to deal with the mess that is Iraq.

He and his advisors did not see (or want to see) the need for many many more troops and funding. In order to pull this off correctly he may well have had to re-institute a draft and raise taxes.

Ahh yes, there's nothing that can't be fixed with a draft and higher taxes.

On the draft, it's just too bad that nobody in the military establishment wants one or thinks they need one. And nobody except crazed BDS sufferers on the left support one.

As for funding, I thought we were already spending far too much in Iraq? Funds that we should be spending domestically on new government programs? I haven't heard John "I actually voted FOR the $87 billion BEFORE I voted against it" Kerry or any other prominent Democrat calling for increased levels of spending in Iraq.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

He's talking about a percentage. The Khmer killed between a fifth and a third of the population of Cambodia. The Nazis killed more in absolute terms, but not in relative.

I said "scale" not absolute numbers. There is a difference. If you are going to accuse me of being disingenuous at least show me the common courtesy of reading the post beforehand.

For the sake of argument say Iraq splits in 3 parts Kurdistan, Sunnistan and Shiastan.

The formation of kurdistan in and of itself is going to give us an incredible amount of strain with turkey. We would have to be willing and actively allow kurdistan to replace Turkey as an ally in the region.

While it would be folly to predict what would happen with Sunnistan, the following are true. They would have no oil, a very high poverty rate, their primary industry is no more (Beating up on the other parts of iraq). In addition this impoverished region would have a pressing need to militarize. If for nothing else than the fact Shiastan and Kurdistan would like to kill every last one of them.

So you have a militarized, impoverished and resentful Sunnistan. This is at best not good at worst really, really bad.

Shiastan, right now this area is riddled with agent provocateurs from Iran. If we pursue the plan we might if lucky eliminate them and let them go their own way. If we are unlucky Iran will simply annex the area and be handed half of their immediate goal on a silver plate.

Letting this country take the path of least resistance is not a panacea for their problems. We have to be on a side and the only one even remotely positive is that of a federal Iraq.

What if Iraqi decided to partition into three pieces after our troops pull out, or they elect an Islamic terrorist government after we leave? Unless we invade and occupy every Islamic country forever, we need to deal with the fact that they might make some decisions we don't like.

The whole concept of the global war on terror was to fight it mostly with special forces and economic / political weapons, like we used to win the Cold War. Long term occupations and nation building tie down our forces for a long time, create enemies, and just aren't worth the time to use them as tactics in the GWOT. If a country has an Islamic dictator like Saddam who is a threat to us, we'd be better off with a surgical strike invasion (like I thought Iraq would be), knocking out the dictator and then letting their country pick up the pieces. We do need to establish stability for a short while.

I also believe that we should give Iraq guarantees against foreign invasion, which includes remaining in Iraq for as long as necessary to protect them.

Unfortunately we really have no choice but to deal with the world as we find it not as we would like it. With Afghanistan, there was no downside to the low cost special forces / surgical strike strategy. If it didn't work we would have eliminated the taliban and Afghanistan would still have been Afghanistan.

In Iraq if we had of just done a surgical strike, Iran would have followed up immediately picking up between 25 and 50 percent of the country. This is what we are really really trying to prevent.

Giving Iraq guarantees against foreign invasion is at best something done too late. Iran has a very large fifth column in place that needs to be removed first. If we fail to eliminate the Iranian presence, we will see a large chunk of the country just join Iran. The Anschluss comes to mind.

Re: While it would be folly to predict what would happen with Sunnistan

Sunnistan would either become (after much bloodletting) a religious Islamic state, in which case it will be a client of Saudi Arabia, or else the Baathists will engineer a restoration leading to a new secularist dictatorship, with Syria as the patron. One good result of the latter: the Syrian-Iranian alliance would be strained to the breaking point by tensions between Sunnistan and Shi'iaq.