Filed under: Democrats, Iraq — Marc Schulman on November 16, 2007 @ 12:15 am CET
In today’s Washington Post, John Podesta, Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis make this claim:
Rather than push for a realistic end to U.S. engagement, the Bush administration claims doomsday scenarios would become reality if a phased U.S. withdrawal began. Iraq, it says, would become a terrorist sanctuary, incite regional war or be the scene of sectarian genocide. These arguments are as faulty as those that led us into Iraq, and progressive leaders must push back.
Do the authors present a counter-argument to the Bush Administration’s “faulty” arguments? No. Not a word. For them, it is self-evidently true that Iraq would not become a terrorist sanctuary, would not incite regional war, and would not be the scene of sectarian genocide. Unlike Podesta, Korb, and Katulis, I lay no claim to perfect foresight. The only thing I do know is that these events are possibilities. To rule them out is demagoguery.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 Pat
November 16, 2007 @ 12:31 am CETObviously someone forgot what the Lady Ambassador to Iraq said to Saddam Hussien in 1989-90! That was “The U.S. won’t get involved in intra-arab affairs.”
Too funny, so he went and attacked Kuwait! (Me, I think he got set up!) But to the current debate, how could anyone believe that all hell wouldn’t break loose if we just up and left? I find this the height of stupidity. I didn’t agree with going into Iraq, but now that we are there, we’d better resolve to clean up our mess as best we can, and it can be done with the necessary commitment to getting it done.
2 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 1:40 am CETI’ll rewrite it for them:
3 Interested
November 16, 2007 @ 1:51 am CETwhere’s your counter argument Chris
4 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 2:42 am CETInterested,
Turkey is striking northern Iraq. < — Regional war [X]
There are tons of terrorists there when there were little-none before <– terrorist sanctuary [X]
Entire neighborhoods have been cleansed and the country is reorganizing itself along sectarian lines <– sectarian genocide [X]
Our military presence there hasn’t prevented these things from happening. What’s the value in staying?
5 Pat
November 16, 2007 @ 3:35 am CETChris
Sorry, gotta be a smartass here, yeah big mistakes have been made, they are being rectified.
Turkey has patrolled into northern Iraq probably since before you were born for the same reason.
“Tons of Terrorists” is an interesting way to put it, yes it did become a magnet for like minded radicals from all over the world. As a way of collecting garbage it worked pretty well, probably wasn’t entirely considered an objective, but it happened, we gotta move on!
Sectarian genocide you say, another use of a politically sensitive term which doesn’t help. Are you aware that after we threw Saddam out of Kuwait, this very same thing happened (admittecly to a lesser extent) in Kuwait City! Folks settled grudges, pure plain and simple. They do that over there! (And they did it in New Orleans after Katrina too!)
The value in staying and continuing the fight is so that it doesn’t happen again! Not to mention, it is OUR responsibility as a society and nation to see the problem through. If you have a problem with this, then you should be for stopping all assistance to Israel as well, because this inflames passions in the Middle East too!
6 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 5:43 am CETI’m for that. Our money should going to help people in need, not just people that buy our weapons.
7 Michael van der Galiën
November 16, 2007 @ 11:42 am CETLOL Pat: You don’t seem to realize that Chris isn’t… a friend of Israel, shall we say?
For what its worth Chris: you don’t answer most arguments.
8 Chris
November 16, 2007 @ 5:25 pm CETMichael,
You just don’t like the way I answer arguments. Also, I’d like to hear your rationalization for the immense aid the U.S. gives to the wealthy nation of Israel.
9 Tully
November 16, 2007 @ 5:36 pm CETYou just don’t like the way I answer arguments.
Because mostly you DON’T answer arguments, you change the subject or divert into irrelevance or attempt to assert your personal subjective opinions as established facts.
10 Interested
November 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm CETwe also get much of the money we give to Israel back in the form of they purchase our goods. Unlike a large percentage of foreign aid recipients that spend it elsewhere.
11 rudi666
November 17, 2007 @ 1:14 am CETInterested - I think your wrong on that one, like with China we have a negative trade balance with Israel.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5081.html#2007
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2007
Add on top of that our aid and the negative balance is bigger.
12 Interested
November 17, 2007 @ 1:20 am CETUmm that’s trade balance Rudi
that is not foreign aid - and further does not split out Loans versus aid, and within aid - economic vs military.
13 Interested
November 17, 2007 @ 1:21 am CETok, first one got caught by the spam filter.
Stastics are great - if they pertain to the issue at hand.
You are quoting trade balances, which is not aid, and does not split out the various types of aid.
14 rudi666
November 17, 2007 @ 1:22 am CETDon’t we just love statistics!!
;-(
15 Interested
November 17, 2007 @ 1:23 am CETha, or maybe it didn’t. time was off though - go figure that one.
16 rudi666
November 17, 2007 @ 2:01 am CETInter - Care to look at the numbers with Egypt. The totals are positive, I do believe that Egypt still buys stripped down M1A2’s and fighters. I wonder if Israel buys tanks or planes anymore? I wonder if they paid GDLS or Northrop when they reverse engineered(like Iran) the defense products they bought at one time?
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c7290.html#2007
17 Interested
November 17, 2007 @ 2:40 am CETyour still on trade balances - it is not an apples to apples comparision by any means.
Foreign aid is not trade balance. Even if it did include the foreign aid given (which would not include loans) the amounts would be far beyond the aid amounts themselves in either country for either imports or exports.
18 Tom
November 17, 2007 @ 3:28 am CETNot a real post, just a test to see if my avatar shows up.
19 Tom
November 17, 2007 @ 3:31 am CETLet’s try again