Letters to the Editor
Foodle
Published Letters: 45
-
Part II
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That takes us back through June, and I don't intend to track the polls back any further. What we have is 1) no polling data showing that the American people want W16 and only W16; 2) no polling data conclusively demonstrating that the American people do not want Wf; 3) polling data from the ABC News/Washington Post Poll and the USA Today/Gallup Poll suggesting that at least a substantial minority and perhaps a majority of Americans do not want W16 if not Wf, where the fact on the ground that would disqualify withdrawal is a lack of a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq. We also have a list of facts that the American people are willing to accept in Iraq while withdrawing most troops: 1) relative instability in Iraq, especially if it would persist for four or more years; 2) the U.S. does not win in Iraq; 3) civil order is not restored in Iraq. What the distinction is that makes a lack of a "reasonable level of stability and security" unacceptable while a lack of "relative instability" or "civil order" is acceptable isn't clear from the available data.
Also unclear is just which facts on the ground would disqualify Wf and which would be acceptable; however, I don't think you can credibly argue (and certainly not from the available polling data) that the American people want W16 and only W16 regardless of any facts or policy alternatives. For example, I find it impossible to believe that the American people would insist on withdrawal within 16 months and only withdrawal within 16 months, even if U.S. troops could be withdrawn with substantially greater security if the withdrawal took 17 months. In other words, there are potential facts on the ground which all but certainly would cause Americans to choose Wf over W16, even if it is not completely clear what the extent and limits of those facts are. The situation is something like the apocryphal tale of George Bernard Shaw asking a woman if she would sleep with him if he paid her a small amount of money. To her "certainly not!", Shaw replied with a question as to whether she would sleep with him for a substantial sum of money. When she paused, he is said to have replied, "We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price." The insistence that the American people will accept absolutely nothing except withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months is not credible, and there may yet be considerable haggling over price if W16 cannot be accomplished free from some of the facts that might disqualify Wf.
-
Kitt
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Glenn wants to explain how his "Americans want to withdraw from Iraq in accordance with Obama's timetable (if not faster) regardless of circumstances "on the ground" -- not conditioned on those circumstances" is substantively different from "the American people want W16 and only W16," then let him. I don't see my formulation as shifting any goalposts, but rather as an opportunity to clarify just what the polls, Glenn, and myself are saying.
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I did not offer a sunk cost fallacy. Nowhere did I claim that we should stay in Iraq because of what we have already invested in the war effort. Your grading effort is rejected.
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fine, you are arguing against the Bush/Cheney sunk cost falacy, not against me. Then what is your reason for trying to fail me?
-
L.W.M.
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make no sense. Nowhere did I even suggest that the occupation of Iraq is popular.
My points are that the polls do not show that the American people want only W16 and not Wf, and that the polls are consistent with (though not conclusive support for) the claim that the American people want both W16 and Wf. I also claim that the polling data do not clearly indicate exactly which facts on the ground would disqualify Wf (though there are certainly some), nor do they clearly indicate how the American people would react if certain potentially disqualifying facts would be in evidence in Iraq were W16 pursued regardless of any other considerations.
-
Actually, acefsw
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've tried to steer clear from arguing over whether withdrawal according to an unconditional timetable is the right or wrong policy. In the past several posts I have been trying to address what is clear and what is ambiguous from the polling data on Americans policy preferences for Iraq.
-
"self-indulgent, knee-jerk and borderline silly"
[Read the article: Tom Friedman doesn't understand why America is unpopular in the world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]World to Friedman: Suck. On. This.