posted by Damozel | I tend statistically to prefer reading centrist or moderate blogs. I'm surprised that more people don't. Whereas blogs that lean right or left tend to be pretty predictable, centrist/moderate bloggers are full of surprises. Furthermore, they generally feel some sort of commitment to giving reasons for their opinions. They also tend to split hairs and insist on making their bricks from at least a modicum of straw. Finally, though some adopt what you might call an astringent or brisk tone, most refrain from getting worked up to the point of shrillness or icy loathing. They're moderate in their tone as well as in their politics; I like that.
Sometimes I just am not in the mood to get ranted at; or to see my own opinions delivered with a burst of bile or dissolved in vitriol. I want to read blogs whose authors don't automatically assume I already know their position or necessarily agree with them.
Welcome to the Centrophere:.
First, the war. What should we do about Iraq?
In this week's TIME, Michael Duffy said:
A reduction in the U.S. combat presence would probably produce one clear benefit: a lower U.S. casualty rate. But a chilling truth is that as the U.S. death toll declined, the Iraqi one would almost surely soar. Just how many Iraqis would die if the U.S. withdrew is anyone's guess, but almost everyone who has studied it believes the current rate of more than a thousand a month would spike dramatically. It might not resemble Rwanda, where more than half a million people were slaughtered in six months in 1994. But Iraq could bleed like the former Yugoslavia did from 1992 to 1995, when 250,000 perished.
There is no debate about why: in the wake of an American pullout, Baghdad would be quickly dominated by Shi'ite militias largely unbloodied by the American campaign. Already, well-armed security forces that pose as independent are riddled with militiamen who take direction from Shi'ite leaders. Death-squad killings of Sunnis would rise. Against such emboldened forces, Sunni insurgents and elements of Saddam Hussein's former regime would retaliate with their weapon of choice: car-bomb attacks against Shi'ite markets, shrines, police stations and recruiting depots. (TIME)
I'm assuming that this view is fairly reflective of the probabilities. And I'm not comfortable with this. Which is why Obama's views on the question of how and when we go so trouble me. Should it matter to us that by leaving, we ensure the death of any Iraqis?
Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there." (AP/Yahoo)
His reasoning simply doesn't sit well with me, though I certainly agree with his view that we need to switch to a greatly increased emphasis on diplomacy.
At Dyre Portents, Dyre effectively nailed the reason I find this reasoning of Obama's so completely specious, though he gives Obama credit for the aspects of his policy that deserve it. .
He's almost has a point there but it skips the fact that we didn't directly cause the problems in Chad and Sudan. However provided he (or anyone) were to start the aforementioned diplomatic process months prior to any withdrawal, that would be a plan I could get behind. Mr. Obama's plan, while sparse on details, at least sounds more like a plan than a talking point.
True. It seems as though he's weighed the risks and taken in the painful fact that there are no good or easy solutions. But it still bothers me that he's comparing apples and oranges in this way. As Dyre said, the aftermath in Iraq will be down to us. Seems to me that this should make all the difference.
At Sideways Mencken, Michael Reynolds has written a breathtakingly pragmatic piece on what we can still achieve in Iraq. He starts with the things we can't achieve (we can't "nuke them all and let God sort 'em out" because "we're the good guys"; we can't send in another 200,000 troops because we don't have 200,000 troops; we can't keep on keeping on because we don't have enough people there now; we can't reinstate the draft because the public wouldn't have it; we can't tell the public to sit tight because there's about to be an election. All true. Then he lists what we can achieve:
1) We can pretend we can still win with even fewer men. Because that worked so well the first time. This is the "kick the can down the road and try to pass the blame to the Democrats," option. I'm guessing this will be the Bush solution. (Tough luck, GOP Congressmen.)
2) We can talk about closing the borders and standing off in Kuwait and waiting to see whether civil war breaks out. Then we can watch the civil war. Maybe it won't be another Somalia. As for our ability to close the borders of Iraq, does the word Mexico ring any bells?
3) We can hope real hard. We can hope for a miracle that causes the Maliki government to set aside tribalism and reach a core set of agreements with the various factions. Yep, all we need is for the Shia and the Sunni, the Kurds and the Turkmen, the Iranians and the Saudis and the Turks to reach a deal, followed by a sudden outbreak of that well-known middle-eastern tolerance and competence and . . .
. . . and you see why I'm not optimistic?The right's new line of attack is to demand that critics supply answers before criticizing. Because that's how you handle your doctor, your plumber, your auto mechanic and everyone else who fails you, right? You don't criticize unless you can prove you can do their job better?
I just keep going back to the report of the Iraq Commission to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. They've got recommendations for him, but all agree that the way out won't be easy no matter what and that it will mean the spilling of more blood. This, they say, is the price to extract themselves. Margaret Jay is a bit more optimistic, or affects to be, with respect to the role of diplomacy. But really there is no easy way out. (BN-Politics)
RELATED ARTICLES: LINKED, QUOTED OR CITED
At Done with Mirrors, Callimachus addresses some painful questions and painful realities about the consequences of our decision to invade in the first place. As he suggests, those of us who lived through Vietnam can readily spot the similarities.
Speaking of the candidates, also at Done with Mirrors, Reader_Iam asks if we would call this "unhinged."
Reader_Iam says:
Frankly, the use of the word "unhinged" to describe what's shown in this video strikes me as far more over the top than the clip of Guiliani at a rally, even when he uses the word--gasp!--"bullshit." I mean, I've seen little old ladies in Iowa battling over the same handicapped space at the local grocery get more exercised than that. And I certainly have "screamed"--or just plain shouted--more loudly and vehemently when barking my shin in the middle of the night, on the way to the bathroom.
Maybe you just had to be there, at that cop union rally back in 1992.
Or something.
Or maybe you had to have seen this:
I saw it quite some time ago, and I said to myself, "This guy seems sort of intense." And nothing I've seen since has really changed my mind. I don't think that what we need right now is a president who is this intense.
At Donklephant, Justin Gardner discusses the Dems' current, um, significant money advantage.
The question remains how do the Repubs get more contributors? Well, they’re going have to find a yet untapped base of supporters and that means they’re going to have to get more moderate and try to convince Independents that they’re different than the Bush administration. But that’s unlikely because all of these candidates are betting that continuing Bush’s foreign policy will bring the voters in, and Independents are just about as done with that policy as Dems are. Another hazard for candidates…if they change positions at this point, well, that would be flip-flopping. And we all know how much Republicans hate that.
Yes, they do, don't they?
I am all for flip-flopping myself, since intelligent people do that when they have new information that contradicts their position. Republicans make never changing their minds a point of honor. Have they learned nothing from W's great fall?
Back again to Dyre Portents: Dyre discusses the Fox News poll showing that Republicans are losing ground to Democrats. "Either the GOP candidates are in trouble or Fox is trying to lull the Dems into a false sense of security." You know, that might just be crazy enough to work. They don't call them Fox News for nothing!
I was going to check out media response to the great You-Tube debate, but Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has already compiled responses. But I liked Gandelman's comments best:
So now The New Era in American political debates is finally here.
Or IS IT?
Not only did the “new media” You Tube participate in last night’s Democratic presidential hopefuls’ debate, but some pundits said the questions from You Tubers were for the most part knowledgeable and to the point. Would some media types who may have felt debates were a plumb for star journalists start feeling as seemingly resentful as some journalists do about anyone-can-publish weblogs these days? By some accounts, many of the You Tube questions were blunt and solid ones.
Of course, then there was the talking snowman.
But since political debates usually feature snow jobs, what was new about that?
I came away from the debate---as usual---with the clear impression that Hillary Clinton is destined to be the next president. I don't mean I've decided to vote for her; I don't yet know which candidate I really favor other than that he or she will be a Democrat.
I lean toward Edwards at present, but this may be because I really love Elizabeth. On the other hand, I like Bill Clinton too. (Shut up: I know, okay? Whatever you're thinking, I already know. ) .Right now it's really coming down to whether I want Elizabeth Edwards or Bill Clinton to be First Lady. I like Bill Richardson very much, but....no. I just don't see it happening. And I am past the age where the gorgeousness and charisma and glitter that comes off Obama like a haze can enchant me. The next president is going to have a very hard and nasty job, I expect. Maybe I'm drawn to Hillary because I know she's used to being disliked and decried.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
Comments