Morning Coffee (87)

I hope that everyone is relatively warm. The map indicates that it is certifiably frigid throughout our nation. But do you know what is not frigid? That’s right. Your Morning Coffee. I wonder though, how the cold will affect the turnout for the hugely important and greatly interesting caucus in Iowa…you know our citizens. If voting is in any way inconvenient, you can forget it.

Edwardian Politics:

John Edwards, he of the flashy smile and expensive hair, has revealed unto us his plan for Iraq. Should he become President, he will withdraw virtually all US troops from the country within 10 months, including those who are training the Iraq military and police. In this, Edwards defeats his rivals in one way that will be appealing to Democratic voters; his withdraw plans are far more thorough and will be accomplished in a far shorter time period than either Clinton or Obama.

Edwards’s plan consists of the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, and then the withdrawal of the rest within 9 or 10 months. He would leave 3,500-5,000 in place to protect the Embassy and maybe humanitarian aid workers. To combat any increase in sectarian violence, which he acknowledges as a possible side effect of such a rapid withdrawal (or “redeployment” as some Democrats call it) in a nation so thoroughly addicted to US troops, Edwards would keep a quick reaction force (QRF) in Kuwait or Jordan. That sounds good, right? Even reasonable. We could rapidly redeploy troops a few hundred miles to another country that doesn’t want a large contingent of US troops in order to rapidly redeploy them should the initial redeployment prove ill-advised, or cause genocide. I wonder though, if Edwards has bothered to speak with Jordanian or Kuwaiti officials, or if he just assumed that they’d be okay with hosting an undetermined number of redeployed troops.

Which leads me to further wonder, since Edwards’s figures seem pretty specific already, if he has an idea as to many troops he would keep in Kuwait or Jordan? Or would he defer to the judgment of the military on that one? I would find that interesting, since he’s ignoring what most senior military officials (and an NIE) are saying regarding the unfeasibility of such rapid and comprehensive troop withdrawals. Wouldn’t that be ironic? The military deciding on the numbers of troops to maintain in the region which would be there for pretty much the sole reason of saving Edwards’s skin should his plan, which is the complete opposite of what the military suggests, not produce results? Basically, we’ll keep ‘em close by just in case we shouldn’t have took them out in the first place.

Whatever the numbers, it doesn’t sound like Edwards has much faith in his plan, the main crux of which is that we must leave Iraq to force the Iraqi leadership into finally doing things for themselves. How benevolent of us. We’re like parents, kicking out our children because they’ve become too much of a burden, and doing so will only force them to clean up their act and become responsible adults. Except that it doesn’t really work that way. Because we’re not parents and the Iraqis are not children. In this case, they’re grown men, and each separate group in Iraq has a different set of agendas, all of which will be contrary; not only to each others’ interests, but our interests. If we leave prematurely, it will not be the nice, friendly, peace loving Iraqis that inherit power; it will be the brutal, power-hungry types who will do anything who will secure power. If we are going to leave just to let a brutal, anti-US regime take power, then why did we topple the previous regime, which in the end might actually turn out to have been LESS brutal and anti-US than a new one? If we’re beholden to our mores of spreading democracy, we would simply be forced to remove another regime in a few years, otherwise we’d be cast as hypocrites. It matters not what the true reasons we demolished Saddam’s regime were, we later billed the endeavor as an opportunity to spread democracy to the Middle East, thus it can be argued that this is where our obligation lies.

In the same article, Edwards asserts that we (he) must restore our moral standing in the world. I’m not sure I see how leaving Iraq and sparking widespread conflict and chaos does this. In 1991, we ceased providing aid to Afghanistan. We had no further use for them, since our only goal was to provide them with the means to defeat the Soviets. You may think this is apples and oranges. Surely, our intent there was not to spread democracy or even leave the Afghans with a stable government or economy. But since this was not a priority, and we gave it hardly a thought, leaving Afghanistan unstable and in the hands of warlords turned out to be a bad idea. It embittered a generation of Muslims against the United States, which they felt simply abandoned fellow Muslims after their use had expired. We didn’t create al-Qaida and its knockoffs by providing them with money and training during the Soviet-Afghan War, we created them by leaving Afghanistan to poverty and a dozen years of war and chaos. The situation in Iraq has the potential to be even worse. We did not support the Iraqis in some proxy war with our chief rival, which left them impoverished and war-stricken. Instead, we obliterated a stable (albeit brutal) regime, conducted non-stop combat operations against an insurgency which ravaged Iraq’s infrastructure and economy, helped create an un-bridgeable gap in the demographics of the country where there had previously been few and then abruptly redeployed troops. We do this because Mr. Edwards (or whoever else) believes that it’s time to make the Iraqis stand on their own because we’re tired of shouldering the burden on their behalf. We were directly responsible for their situation, unlike in Afghanistan. This does nothing to improve our moral standing. I would argue that this accomplishes the opposite of what Mr. Edwards intends. Surely, we’ll continue to pump money into Iraq’s infrastructure even after we redeploy troops because it has oil, so unlike in Afghanistan, there’s a more practical reason for providing aid. And if we don’t do so, the Chinese will. So economically, the outlook, at least temporarily, is better than it was for Afghanistan. But how long will conflict there continue after we leave? And will this conflict make any potential aid moot?

I, frankly, do not care about the spread of democracy as an end, nor about the use of the military as a means to that end. I care about Iraq for far more practical reasons. We were involved with helping Japan regain its footing after WWII longer (seven years) than we have been involved in Iraq, and we didn’t even have an insurgency with which to contend. We helped the Japanese despite the fact that they actually attacked us. We did the same for Germany (four years). So committed to stabilizing Japan were we, that we banned a religion (Shinto). We stayed and helped these two nations because we learned this lesson once before. Germany and Germans, not feeling militarily beaten, were bitter and resentful of the crushing repatriations and military limitations of the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed upon them by the Allies. Hitler brought to the Germans hope and a chance for redemption. Perhaps much like Salafism and bin Ladin. For practical reasons, we have an obligation, if not to the Iraqis then to ourselves. For prematurely “redeploying troops”, i.e. abandoning Iraq, will likely cause us more problems in the future; potentially worse than our abandonment of Afghanistan. Staying in Iraq and helping create a stable, secure Iraq is a propaganda win; a moral win. Showing people that we clean up our messes and do not abandon people is valuable. I’m surprised that Iraq is not seen as an opportunity for a moral victory by Democrats, especially considering that they generally paint themselves as more idealistic than Republicans (role reversal anyone?). But the demand for an end to what they call an “illegal war” (authorized by Congress) is more about political expediency, which in our nation is always more important than idealism, even for idealists, who generally prove to be politically practical enough to abandon ideals when necessary. If only their political practicality could inform their policies on this occasion.

Edwards’s policy on Iraq will change a great deal once he were to see the situation through the lens of the Presidency, of this I’m certain. But as it stands right now, I view his policy as even less appropriate and more ridiculous than his Democratic rivals. He’s simply trying to be more “hard core” in order to pander to the anti-war crowd and others who are disillusioned (and who will fail to realize that this plan still requires an unknown number of troops to be deployed overseas), never mind that it’s simply a bad policy. But who cares when all you’re trying to do is win the office? But does this manner of thinking surprise anyone? Aren’t they all the same? I wish I could discuss Iraq policies free from the soft, fuzzy glow of Presidential politics, but unfortunately that is impossible right now.

As a side note, I heard a political ad from Hillary Clinton this morning, proclaiming that it is time to take a new path, one that is different from the path we’ve been on for the previous seven years. Hillary is a master of the obvious, considering this is an election year in which the incumbent cannot run, and thus it must be time for a new path no matter who wins. I get her point, but I still find this commercial absurd. Apparently though, it needed to be said, and she paid for it to be said. Oh, and each vote in Iowa costs $200, based on the amount of money candidates have spent there and predicted voter turnout. Neat.

Word of the Day: Arcanum (noun): 1. A secret; a mystery. 2. Specialized or mysterious knowledge, language, or information that is not accessible to the average person (generally used in the plural, which is arcana). Reminds me of the specialized knowledge that politicians have, which is not accessible to the average person.

On This Day in History: Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman orator, philosopher, lawyer, political theorist and politician, was born (106 BCE). Leonardo da Vinci fails in his tests of a flying machine (1496). As discussed previously in the MC, Pope Leo X excommunicates Martin Luther (1521).

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.”

“Even if you have nothing to write, write and say so.”

“Next to God we are nothing. To God we are Everything.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero. I find the last quote interesting considering monotheism wasn’t exactly en vogue in Rome while Cicero lived. Sounds like someone revised Cicero’s statement somewhat…revisionism at its finest.