Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 360 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Lynx and a Joe Klein item
[Read the article: Attacks on civilians, torture and lawless detentions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lynx,
Part of my point, in fact my central point, is that most Americans do not know that first use is, and always has been, American doctrine. Gravel pointed this out in SC.
It was arguably a necessary doctrine in the 60s, with a totalitarian regime issuing direct threats against allies in Europe.
But at this point--in fact, shortly after the Wall fell--the US should have said that in the absence of the Soviet threat, we will match the Russians in retiring warheads one to one until we've both reached the number of warheads France has. This not only did not happen, but in the current administration additional theater capability--which is pretty much by definition, first use--has at the very least been seriously proposed.
Moreover, this whole "all options are on the table" thing with respect to Iraq clearly represents a threat to use a nuke, as a pre-emptive measure directed at their nuclear production facilities.
Americans do not see themselves as imperialist warmongers, even when, heck, we've spent the last four years being just that.
Or, perhaps that's unfair. That 72% wrong track poll number may be mostly based in opposition to this catastrophic occupation.
Thanks for the correction on China. I did not know that.
In other news, Joe Klein made a funny mistake this morning. In expressing his support for the supplemental, he cited Jane Harman's support for the bill. But, um, she voted against it. I suppose this means we should be especially trusting when he quotes anonymous sources, because this public record stuff is tricky.
-
Buried Lede
[Read the article: Major troop reductions imminent -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the article, and also this post miss something very important.
Several administration officials said they hoped that if such a reduction were under way in the midst of the presidential campaign, it would shift the debate from whether American forces should be pulled out by a specific deadline — the current argument consuming Washington — to what kind of long-term presence the United States should have in Iraq.
“It stems from a recognition that the current level of forces aren’t sustainable in Iraq, they aren’t sustainable in the region, and they will be increasingly unsustainable here at home,” said one administration official who has taken part in the closed-door discussions.
[snip]
The officials cautioned that no firm plans have emerged from the discussions. But they said the proposals being developed envision a far smaller but long-term American presence, centering on three or four large bases around Iraq. Mr. Bush has told recent visitors to the White House that he was seeking a model similar to the American presence in South Korea.
This is something of a hobbyhorse of mine, because I believe this plan for permanent occupation of Iraq has been in place from the beginning, and is simply not discussed by politicians or the media. It leads me to question the honesty of the Democratic candidates, especially those who are sitting Senators who have voted for appropriations to construct these permanent bases and the attendant 1000 person "embassy" that will be in charge in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
But now we are hearing, from the usual shadowy "officials" that the plan in "sovereign" Iraq is a permanent occupation. Those bases, as reported by George Packer and others represent a presence of about 50,000 soldiers.
Is there any way that this occupation would have public support, if spoken about frankly? Is there any question that the idea of a "sovereign" Iraq is as thin a tissue of lies as can be imagined? Why wasn't this plan mentioned in any of the President's major speeches and his press briefings?
And, why oh why (channeling Brad DeLong) is there absolutely no discussion of these plans? Anywhere?
-
SteveLG: Webb
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But when it came to actually vote on a blank check, Webb voted for it, saying that:
. On the one hand, I find myself unable to vote against a measure that is necessary to fund our troops who are now in harm's way. On the other, I will not relent from my continuing efforts to bring this occupation to an end.
So he bought into the frame as well. This is from someone at zero electoral risk. Regardless of how this all plays out, by 2010, this vote will be unimportant. So, in some sense, he actually believed this. He actually believed that the president's refusal to sign legislation that provided any oversight meant that, I don't know, what Glenn said, soldiers would run out of ammo, and be under fire because the Congress wouldn't sign a blank check.
-
GG: Harman voted No.
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That quote from Klein is very confusing, because she voted against the supplemental. Joe's story (although he quotes her in the past tense regarding her vote) is that she changed her mind after he talked to her.
I guess it illustrates how this whole thing is making Democrats' head explode, or something.
Does she really believe the justification she gave for a yes vote, but voted no because she feared a primary challenge, like last time? Did Joe just screw up the quote?
It's getting increasingly difficult to determine our elected officials' actual views on this occupation. On the one hand, you've got presidential candidates who appear to voting no when their past positions would seem to imply a yes vote. On the other, you've got all these reports of (justifiably) scared republicans who are voting yes provisionally. Then you've got the president, reportedly, discussing permanent occupation.
One thing that is clear--they are all very aware that this occupation is very unpopular--makes everything still more confusing. What is hard about this? What do the consultants fear so deeply? And why would someone like Webb or Tester listen to these people?