A Conservative Asks About Withdrawal from Iraq

Over at DailyKos.com I engaged in an exchange with a conservative supporter of the Bush Administration, after he requested, Could somebody explain to me the rational[e] behind withdrawing our troops immediately [from Iraq]?"

I first proceeded to address the first point inherent in his question:

I’ve addressed the larger point that your question raises, that is: Was it smart to go into Iraq to begin with? Clearly the answer was and is a resounding no. Any answer to the contrary simply ignores the rational voices that opposed the war at the beginning and, now, an answer to the contrary, ignores reality on the ground. Accordingly, to sum up: only those that were willing to deceive themselves bought the lies coming from the Bush Administration and, today, war supporters choose to remain oblivious to the reality on the ground.

Which then lead me to address the premise he had used to set up his question:

All that said, your premise, that if the US left Iraq that it would lead to civil war and/or to undesirables gaining control of the country, simply ignores the facts. The reality is that, as expert observers have already noted, Iraq is in a low grade civil war already, a war that’s only likely to escalate — remember, experts knew that this would be the likely result after invasion (that’s why Bush I stopped short of going into Baghdad). As for Al Queda getting a stronger foothold in the country, I’d would remind you that your statement, again, ignores immediate history and the post invasion reality that now exists on the ground: Hussein and Al Queda had absolutely no operative relation; but now, after the Bush Administration, with the consent of his supporters, invaded Iraq, Al Queda is indeed in that country now (we and the Iraqi people have all those that supported and continue to support Bush & Co. to thank for that — that, I presume, includes you).

I then concluded with:

So, what do we do now that the Bush Administration, with the aid and comfort of his war supporters, committed the biggest military blunder in American history? (Before continuing, lemme just say that it truly pisses me off that after Bush et al committed this, and other catastrophic mistakes, that we (Liberal and Democrats) some how have the responsibility and onus to offer a solution to the mess that your president created; but, nonetheless, that’s what Liberals do, we offer solutions and make progress.) So, what do we do? We do what Murtha has proposed in his redeployment plan, and I paraphrase: 1. We form a quick reaction team to be deployed "just over the horizon," in case the shit really hits the fan; 2. We give the military REAL & CONCRETE goals that lead towards a timed reduction in troops over a predetermined period of time (of course, since the military would really be in charge over such timed withdrawal, they would determine the pace and how safe it is to conduct such withdrawal; the goal, though, would be active progress towards a reduction in troop presence); 3. We make it absolutely clear that the US will not build permanent bases and that we’re not there indefinitely.

To this I would add that, after redeploying the troops completely out of Iraq, the next presidential administration (given that the current one has already given up on formulating an actual solution (Bush has said that it’ll be up to the next president to decide what to do about Iraq)) will need to come up with an intelligent plan to "win the hearts and minds" of that region and, too, figure out a way to combat the poisonous grip that the religious conservative mind set has on that part of the world (of course, if we’re not careful here at home, we too may find ourselves infected and tainted by the same sort of conservative religiosity — why just look at our own brand of religious clerics and their fanatical supporters).

Howard Dean: The Voice of The Democratic Party

Here’s precisely the reason why many of us in the grassroots supported and continue to support Howard Dean:

I, for one, appreciate his bluntness, forcefulness and unapologetic advocacy of Democratic values. Of course, now that Howard Dean is the chair of the DNC, that’s his role and mission, to advocate for the Democratic party. However, he was a strong advocate for Democratic principles and for progressive values long before he was was the chair of the DNC. In fact, one the things that attracted me to Dean was when he claimed, as Paul Wellstone had done once before, that he stood for the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Our country, not to mention the Democratic party, needs more voices like Howard Dean and like Senator Feingold.

GOP: First Religious Party

This frankly deserves a lot more attention than what I can give it here in this quick post that am writing just before going to bed — this subject is certainly worth revisiting at length, which I certainly hope to do.

Kevin Phillips, author of American Dynasty, among other books, has recently published American Theocracy, which takes a close look at the relationship between the Republican Party and the religious fundamentalists right in America. Kevin Phillips goes even further than merely describing the relationship, however. In fact, he suggests that the Republican Party is now the first religious party in American history and that it is this phenomenon that has influenced the Bush Administration’s total lack of a policy apparatus — essentially, the Bush White House has given up on formulating a governing policy and, in stead, has catered to the demands of this extremely influential constituency within the Republican Party by using the White House as a political tool to consolidate control over the religious right.

Now, Kevin Phillips is not some media pundit writing about the Republican Party from the outside, as he’s been an inside player of the Republican Party as a member of Nixon’s White House team. It was during that time, in the early to mid 1970s, that Kevin Phillips began to observe the inroads that the religious fundamentalist right was making within the Republican Party — just around the time that Nixon was launching the Southern Strategy to courtship Southern Whites unhappy with the progress of the Civil Rights movement. Today, of course, the Republican Party is apologizing for its use of race as a wedge issue to courtship the bigot vote in the South; never mind that they continue to use race and other social wedge issues to divide the public, and to attract the bigoted and close minded elements to the Republican Party come election day.

All right, back to Kevin Phillips. As I mentioned above, with American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips does more than merely describe the nexus of religious fundamentalism and the Republican Party. He goes on to describe how the erosion of the manufacturing base, and the transformation of our economy to a finance centric one, are colluding to destroy the social and economic security that America’s middle class enjoyed for much of the twentieth century. This is how NPR’s Fresh Air, the program on which I heard about American Theocracy, describes the author and his book:

Kevin Phillips rose to prominence on the heels of Richard Nixon’s political triumphs. His 1969 book The Emerging Republican Majority was hailed as a visionary work of political analysis. But his new book, American Theocracy, argues that the Republican Party — and the country — is headed for disaster.

Subtitled "The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century," American Theocracy puts the trials of modern America into the context of other great historical powers. From Rome to Great Britain, Phillips identifies the keys to their decline — and draws parallels to modern America.

Phillips wrote a 2004 bestseller, American Dynasty, about the Bush family. American Theocracy is a harsh criticism of the current Bush administration and the Republican Party. Phillips, a senior strategist for Richard Nixon’s 1968 presidential bid, registered himself as a political independent in 2002.

I encourage every one to hear Kevin Phillips’ radio interview with Terry Gross, of Fresh Air. At one point during the interview Terry Gross asks the author to describe whether he’s now a Republican or Democrat, and he simply answers that he’s an independent. He then goes on to lament about how the Republican Party has been totally taken over by the religious right, and how the Dominionists’ apocalyptic end-of-days vision of the world has rendered that party incapable of dealing with the economic issues that he raises in American Theocracy. At this point Kevin Phillips, as if thinking out loud, offers that Democrats are equally incapable of addressing the same economic concerns, though for obviously different reasons. Now, here’s the part that intrigues me and, by the way, I have to agree with Kevin Phillips when he says that: Democrats are incapable of dealing with the economic issues, because they too receive big time money (though not the same amount as Republicans) from the financing centers that are pushing our economy away from manufacturing and into a finance centric one (an economic model that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of virtually everyone else).

So, where do we go from here? Now, I know that in the short term the goal is one chamber of Congress — hopefully both chambers. And then, there’s 2008, for sure. But both of these goals are easy by comparison to the more monumental task of creating one party — just one party — that’s responsive to average voters and, too, a party that’s not beholden to the big money interests that fill the election year coffers of our politicians.

Jesus Spotted on Hollywood Blvd.

Here’s something that my friend Scott would totally do — and if he hasn’t yet, I’d like to go on record to encourage him to do it:

Feingold: How Can We be Afraid at This Point?

Since Senator Feingold proposed censuring President Bush, the Senator has rightfully garnered some much deserved praise and attention. On CNN Senator Feingold was awarded the "Spine Award," for his "political play on the week;" and, of course, the Liberal grassroots and blogsphere have been rejoicing that, finally, an elected Dem is willing to take it strong to the hole against the Bush White House. To be fair, though, the Congressional Black Caucus has always been a strong critic of the Bush White House, though their efforts hardly ever garnered as much attention as what Feingold’s censure call is getting.

On The Charile Rose Show Senator Feingold said out loud what the grassroots has been shouting to the top of their lungs for the past couple of years:

Shades of October 2002. These are the same pundits, consultants, and spin miesters who said you’ve gotta vote for the Iraq war or George Bush is going to hang you out to dry and he’s gonna show that you don’t care about the troops and you don’t care about the fight against terrorism.

They pull it every time. And the Democratic insiders in Washington and the consultants fall for it every time. They don’t realize that the thing that bugs people about the Democratic party right now is that we don’t seem to stand strongly enough for what we believe in.

How can we be afraid at this point, of standing up to a president who has clearly mismanaged this Iraq war, who clearly made one of the largest blunders in American foreign policy history? How can it be that this party wants to stand back and allow this kind of thing to happen?

And then add to that the idea that the president has clearly broken the law — and a number of Republican senators have effectively admitted that, by saying "you know, we need this program so let’s make it legal," — so they are admitting it’s illegal.

The idea that Democrats don’t think it’s a winning thing to say that we will stand up for the rule of law and for checking abuse of power by the executive — I just can’t believe that Democrats don’t think that isn’t something, not only that we can win on, but it does, in fact, make the base of our party, which is so important, feel much better about the Democrats. The Republicans care deeply about making the base of their party feels energized. What about the people of our party who believe in the Democratic Party especially because they fight for the American values of standing up for our rights and civil liberties?

You can check out the interview over at Google Videos, courtesy of Crooks and Liars.