War in Iraq Dialogue

We are at war; soldiers in combat are dying every day. Contractors die. Many innocent Iraqis are dying. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis are terribly wounded. This is the reality we should be talking about.

I remember how very hard it was to disengage in Vietnam. Decades later, today the situation in Iraq is eerily familiar. Here are four reasons why the timing may be getting more ripe for a course change in Iraq :

1. Public opinion polls are in a marked trend downwards, saying the country is going in the wrong direction. Our current president's favorible ratings have plummeted. Juan Cole's post predicts that the direction of public opinion has been turned towards significant opposition to the war, saying, "this thing is an expensive and dangerous quagmire."
Why was the preemptive war in Iraq too expensive? I seem to remember that the cost of this war is about $6 billion per month. Yesterday the Senate passed a budget that makes cuts in domestic spending, including Medicare. The House may make even deeper cuts. The deficit is in the trillions and mounting rapidly. Heavy borrowing from international sources makes us vulnerable to the whims of countries like China. The cost to the reputation of the United States with other nations has been incalculable. The nation's values have been compromised. We have never been a nation that arbitrarily attacks other nations. We are a nation that acts in self defence. It may take years for other nations to trust us as they did before this arrogant interventionism became the policy.

Why is it too dangerous? The war in Iraq puts too many young people in their prime at risk of losing their lives or their limbs. And it is increasingly killing older soldiers with families and civilian careers they left behind when called up. War kills people on purpose. It is dangerously demoralizing to our spirits here at home. The debate over this war is one of the reasons the nation is polarized to a degree that is risky. This war has endangered our proper place as a respected leader in the family of nations.

2. This is just in! Challabi's going to be back in town. (I am amazed that the man has yet to be discredited over here).

Keynote Address at the American Enterprise Institute: November
9, 2005. Program info - "An Insider's View: Democratic Politics at Work
in Iraq," A Foreign Policy Briefing from Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad
Chalabi

Why would we ever be able to believe anything Mr. Chalabi has to say again? NYT journalist Judith Miller turns out to be the vehicle for erroneous intelligence information given to the American public during the current administration's run up to the invasion. For several months the public was "softened up" for the invasion by propoganda fed to Miller by Challabi, during the time he was on the U.S. payroll. Now that reporter's part in the story is out, and she may be out at the NYT . Just like the story of the outing of Valerie Wilson, original "truths" turned out to not be true. Those so-called facts now have very little standing with informed Americans.

3. Senate Democrats are willing to become more vocal about the war. Writer "cscs" at TPM Cafe credits Senator Dianne Feinstein with being a Dem that "passes the test" of truth telling. And Kevin Drum discusses Senator John Kerry's call for a set of benchmarks for withdrawal. Senator Levin has also been calling for a conditioned withdrawal.
What is the test the senators need to pass with the public? Whether up for reelection in 2006 or not, Senators have the responsibility to act upon what their consciences tell them. And they have a responsibility to act in the national interest, as well as the interest of their particular states. They are first responsible to the public at large, not the special interest groups who got them elected. And they need to pass the leadership test that mandates legislative oversight of the executive branch's decisions and actions.
Why should Democrats, who voted for the war, talk about how they came to their decision to give that support? There is no shame in saying that they were deceived. If they acted in good faith, believing that the administration made its case for war in good faith, then they did the best they could at the time. But we now know that the reasons given for going to war were not the real reasons. The reality has now changed. Therefore their rhetoric must change.
What kind of withdrawal bench marks would be the wisest? Minimal signs of Iraqis behaving in empowered ways, factions working together towards a single nation, the election af a permanent government, and increased involvement of other nations in Iraq outcomes are valid benchmarks.
4. The United States policy of treatment of prisoners of war (or enemy combatants or captured terrorists) is shameful, and illegal, in my opinion. In the latest chapter of this unprecedented policy, WaPo reporter Dana Priest broke the story of U.S. detainees being kept in secret prisons all over the world.
What is it that makes this administration think that it is above the law? Arrogance, neocon ideology, immaturity of our current president and his immature lawyers, unreasoning fear, situation ethics, the passivity of Congress, nationalism, imperialism, etc., etc.; all these come to mind with this rhetorical question.