I applaud the espoused sentiment behind this column by John Edwards in today’s Washington Post. He writes:
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn’t make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
I think this is the right direction to go with the rhetoric — focusing on “We made a mistake, how can we recover from it?” rather than “Who tricked us into this?” It’s also a good alternative to the administration’s stance, which appears to be, “There was no mistake and everything’s dandy. Quick — look over there.”
Edwards proposes a three-fold plan that includes reducing our military presence in Iraq, implementing a “more effective training program for Iraqi forces,” and pursuing “a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort.” I think these are good ideas — although I don’t know about reducing our military presence before replacing troops with competent Iraqi forces — but can they actually be implemented? I mean, they sound like the same ideas that have been there all along, which makes me think either the administration hasn’t even tried, or implementation is impossible. Or, I suppose, that the current leadership isn’t competent but someone else could do it.
It seems to me that the broad ideas are covered — although, as I mentioned, it is good to hear a Dem accepting responsibility for a mistake and at least saying that he wants to move on to focus on a solution — but specifics are, as always, lacking. What does a more effective training program look like? How can we convince other countries to get involved?
I certainly don’t have any ideas, and it’s probably naive of me to ask a politician to offer any real solutions, but all of this — the blame game, the acceptance of responsibility, the statement of broad objectives without steps for how to achieve them — still won’t help.
hmm, i think acceptance of responsibility is definitely a step in the right direction. however, we definitely have a long way to go.
I also praise Edwards for taking responsibility for his decision to vote in favor of the war in Iraq, and I think the point of his opinion piece is the right one to make — the “urgent question isn’t how we got here but what we do now.” However, his three-fold plan isn’t much different than what the Bush administration has said all along. The problem is that the things he proposes aren’t a matter of flipping a switch — they take time, money and effort to implement. One could argue that the U.S. doesn’t have adequate resources in Iraq or that the current resources aren’t being used properly, but the fact remains we’ll probably be there for awhile and our efforts will cost a lot of money.
Honestly, the real answer is probably is at some point in the near future we are just going to have to leave and allow the new Iraqi government to sink or swim on its own. If it thrives, well, I’m all for that happening. But sometimes things simply aren’t meant to be, and the U.S. (and everyone really) needs to learn that not everything is fixable, even with an unlimited amount of effort and resources.
I think admitting responsibility is a good start. But Edwards’ three suggestions seem rather pointless and vague.
I think a good first step, instead of reducing the number of U.S. forces, would be to rechannel the efforts of our military. Even though Bush declared an end to major combat operations, the U.S. military is still at war with the Iraqi people and is still engaged in unwinnable military operations. For months, they have been conducting sweeps of predominantly Sunni areas, such as Fallujah, Anbar Province and Tal Afar. These campaigns are both ineffective (the foreign jihadis and insurgents simply leave the area and then come back once the U.S. forces are gone) and counter-productive (the U.S. military inevitably kills civilians during the raids, and this serves to add to the anger of the Sunni community, thus giving them more cause to join the insurgency). These raids also add fuel to the Islamists’ fire in the greater region: visit any Islamist web site and you’ll see pictures of dead Iraqi children killed by U.S. forces, alongside calls for jihad against foreign occupation.
What can we do, to end our war against the Iraqi people? Instead of running around in circles pursuing the militants, I wonder, why can’t the U.S. declare “peace” on Iraq, and limit the military’s missions to providing security at key places like schools, police stations, government buildings, etc. This would be less encumbersome for our forces and would also go a long way toward winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people, particularly the Sunnis.
The U.S. could also win more Iraqi and Arab hearts and minds by clearly and unequivocally condemning the torture and abuse of prisoners. Having lived in the Middle East for the past three years, I have directly witnessed the ill effects of America’s Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. These stories make headlines over here – headlines that just don’t go away. But Bush has threatened to veto a bill put forth by Senator John McCain’s that says “no individual in the cutody or under the physical control of the United States government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Arab world is wondering why Bush, who claims to be the champion of freedom and democracy, won’t sign this bill into law.
As for pursuing a serious diplomatic effort, I hate to say it, but the U.S. is ill-equipped to take the lead on such a daunting task. I think it would be wiser for the U.S. to throw its weight behind the Arab League’s reconciliation initiative. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has invited over 100 Iraqi leaders to come to Cairo this weekend for a national dialogue. The Arab League, which has a better understanding of the intricate regional realities, is better prepared to lead the way in diplomacy. The Arab League can also easily obtain the support of the UN, the EU and the GCC, who have all expressed support for the initiative. The U.S. should offer financial and logistical support for the initiative and take the recommendations of the Arab League (such as establishing a long-term time-table for U.S. withdrawal) seriously.
I vote for Kristin.
From the Associated Press:
The Iraqi woman who failed in her bid to blow up an Amman hotel had three brothers killed by U.S. forces. The killings of Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi’s three brothers in Iraq’s volatile Anbar province is being considered as a possible motivation behind her bid to take part in last week’s triple bombings, which killed 60 people, including her husband and two Iraqi bombers.
Anyone that’s more vocal on the “lets get the hell out of Iraq” subject is headed in the right direction.
Just so everyone knows where I’m coming from: I voted for Bush the first time around. I voted for Kerry the second time (learned the hard way). Having said that… I do think Edwards is grabbing some headlines for the Dems since Bush so low in the polls. Its an opportune time for the Dems to stand together and stay as unified as possible. Focus on this subject and nail it home so we can get past this rediculous waste of life (war) in Iraq.
I strongly agree with one of Ben’s points that this is a headline-grabbing opportunity for Edwards.
Beyong good press the rest is rhetoric. Either party is a big buisness to get votes not a lot to do with issues at all.