“There is a cautionary lesson for today’s Democrats in the early 1970s, when their party generally sided with the public in thinking that the Vietnam War was botched beyond repair and the United States needed to get out,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank associated with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. As a result of Democrats’ perceived excesses and close association with anti-war protests, he said, the party got a reputation for being averse to any use of force and too quick to blame America first for international problems.
Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more moderate orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to “maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning.”
I wouldn’t ask Britney Spears for marriage advice. I wouldn’t ask Bill O’Reilly about sexual harrasment. Why would I listen to a damn thing Will Marshall says about foreign policy?
>> The Other Other Vietnam Syndrome
Yep, better that they listen to someone with real-world experience in resolving a war. But George needn’t bother, the Dems have already made their decision.
Be honest OW, is it Marshall’s association with the DLC or with Lieberman that really has your panties in a bunch?
Out of curiosity, just who would you listen to for foreign policy advice?
Actually if you look at my historical foreign policy positions they’re more in line with the DLC than with the rest of the party. Where I parted company is over the Iraq war. That said, I’d put more stock in the type of foreign policy practiced by President Clinton and Bush I.
OW, I know that you were an opponent of going into Iraq in the first place. Now that the Dems are in a position to do something about it, what do you think our new approach should be? All snark aside, I’d honestly like to hear your opinion.
The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Dubya had a plan to get out of Vietnam….
Say, whatever happened with that Hussein trial?
what do you think our new approach should be?
Leave. Do not say good bye. Start the movement toward the boats as quickly as a rear-guard can be arranged to cover it.
There is nothing that can be done to militarily improve the situation. Let’s stop wasting money and killing people, since we CAN accomplish that “mission” by leaving.
We need to get out. The situation is not salvageable and all we’re doing is losing lives to prop up egos and hubris. Out, out, out is the only way we can finally fight terrorism.
Repack: There is nothing that can be done to militarily improve the situation. Let’s stop wasting money and killing people, since we CAN accomplish that “mission” by leaving.
OW: The situation is not salvageable and all we’re doing is losing lives to prop up egos and hubris. Out, out, out is the only way we can finally fight terrorism.
That’s not what these six Generals are saying:
…Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.
“We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge,” Batiste warned.
“We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer,” contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.
“We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short,” added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.
You remember these Generals, don’t you? They are the military experts brought into hearings by the Democratic leadership to criticize Rumsfeld’s and Bush’s handling of the war.
Also from the article:
…the relatively hawkish Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), who, as the last questioner, invited the officers to comment on the effect of a specific withdrawal date.
“The result will be a civil war of some magnitude that will turn into a regional mess,” Batiste said without hesitation.
As he stood to leave, Batiste worried that this last point — the need to stay in Iraq — might be overlooked. “The hard part,” he told reporters, “is moving forward.”
Did he detect any enthusiasm for making a bigger effort in Iraq?
“God help us if there’s not,” the general said.
I suspect these six are more knowledgeable and in a better position to judge the potential outcome of a premature withdrawal than anyone commenting on this blog.
Besides, it appears that the majority of Americans don’t share your opinion about a speedy withdrawal:
…While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats’ victory “a good thing,” even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Some other interesting numbers from the poll:
…Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration “from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism,” and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.
I was right about not going in in the first place, even when my opinion was in the minority. I don’t think its likely anyone in Washington will be advising us to pour MORE troops into Iraq. It’s a lost cause. 60,000 more troops just means 60,000 more troops in harms way for an Iraq that is long gone.
You seem perfectly willing to listen to those who opposed the first Gulf War.
You can always find a big issue of the day that someone was wrong about. Citing that issue as a valid reason never to listen to that person is an excuse, not a strategy for getting things right.