“No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before,” Bob Kerrey, the former Democratic senator from Nebraska, wrote in a Wall Street Journal commentary. “And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.”
Kerrey continued: “The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically ‘yes.’
“This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified — though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- TomPaine on Too many exemptions
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
26 Comments
We can’t leave Iraq because it would inflate Osama’s ego? Yet another stupid justification to be target practice for Iraqi snipers.
No not hunting his sorry ass down is making his day! Next the excuse will be it is Sunday!
Iraq and terrorism had NOTHING to do with each other before we so stupidly invaded. But Kerrey is right in the fact that they do now which is why we have to stay and probably for a very long time to ensure that the government of Iraq is stable and strong enough to survive on its own. The sad thing is that the other Democrats know this in their hearts but just don’t want to admit it publicly. Kerrey is just saying what Hillary and the others already know. Our stay in Iraq is going to meausred in terms of DECADES and not “months”. We simply have no other options there.
Our stay in Iraq is going to meausred in terms of DECADES and not “months”.Posted by: Kev | May 29, 2007 at 06:11 AM
What a depressing way to start the day.
That is about as incoherent a rationale for staying in Iraq as one is likely to find. I mean, “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” is, like, SOOOOOO ‘04.
There’s also the further canard that we can only clean up the mess we’ve created by creating more of a mess. The idea that we have “no other options” than to stay in Iraq is ludicrous. Our presence there fuels an insurgency and brings in Al Qaeda, and yet we’re the only thing holding the country together?
Such muddle-headed thinking has largely been the property of Republicans up until now. Bob Kerry’s stock continues to drop by mouthing this sort of nonsensical silliness.
“If we leave, Osama wins!” I mean, how goddamn stupid is that? Who CARES what Osama bin Laden thinks? And, more to the point, aren’t we better off handing him a merely psychological victory by leaving, than handing him a strategic victory by remaining in Iraq, keeping our troops in harm’s way, tying us up in a futile and costly war, and acting as a clarion call for jihad?
But none of this is about the oil.
Kerrey makes the point that we would not be wise to withdraw if the terrorists are in a position to claim victory. He also concedes that if you argued from the start that the cost would be too high, then you can sleep at night. Yet he says that the invasion was justified. He seems to be advocating for an extended stay but he does not address the possibly that, if we do stay for many more years, we would at least have to examine the possibility of bringing back the draft. The existing troops need a rest and the National Guard needs to be the National Guard.
At the end of the piece, Kerrey mentions Webb’s comment that you don’t have to occupy a country to fight the terrorists inside of it. By this he must mean, to some extent at least, that cooperation from surrounding groups should be part of the endgame, though he does not explain himself fully.
Here’s my point: when I consider Mr. Kerrey’s piece, it’s not exactly clear what he’s saying. If he means that the situation is a mess but that it can still be salvaged, I hope he’s right. In any case, his argument could have been clearer.
I still like my answer… Pull back, guard the oil fields (shipping all oil back home) and allow the civil war to kill as many as possible, once the fighting stops or everyone is dead, we walk back in, clean the place up and let the people return.
Bob Kerrey, unlike the Chimp-in-Charge, actually fought in Vietnam.
Why he wants to continue to re-fight it in Iraq is a mystery.
There hasn’t been one modern insurgency that has been settled – one way or the other, in less than 20 years. And it has usually required substantial force to combat even a small group of insurgents. For example, it took over 20,000 British troops over 20 years to get about 200 hardcore IRA men to disarm. What makes us think we can deal with thousands of insurgents, with the troop levels we have, in less than 5?
I can understand the “we broke, we own it” thought which to me is what Kerrey is saying…
I can also see that if we pull out, two different things will happen… A Civil war widens kills thousands, maybe even millions. Once they are all dead, we walk in and clean up with a nice, US Puppet government.
The other is a Civil War widens, kills thousands, maybe even millions. Once they are all dead, the Taliban walks in and cleans up with a nice Taliban Puppet government.
Well, I have a 3rd too, maybe Iran does the puppet government installation… interesting thought…
I think the key is to allow the Civil war to run its course, let them kill each other, than go back in and fix what we broke.
Not realistic Tony. What we need to do is find ‘brokers’ who can work with the various factions to set up some sort of ooalition government. It seems likely that this will largely be the neighbors Iran, Syria, Jordan. BushDaBum has so broken the situation that there seems no other choice.
As for the oil fields we have zero right to them. They are not ours.
Probably a good reason why this guy is a FORMER senator eh?
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Odd, Senator Hillary Clinton seem to think there was a problem in Iraq and there were Al Qaeda in Iraq. I mean after all, she was living with a former President who would have known about this too. I’m sure he would have told her if she was in error.
No mystery CapnAmerica, he seemed pretty clear in his reasoning to me.
The same crappy reasons were given if we left Vietnam, only it was called the “domino effect” meaning the world would fall to communism, one country after another.
Kerrey and the Wall Street Journal have their reasons for staying in Iraq, and none of the real reasons are being offered.
The artifical price of gasoline at $4 a gallon is a setup for paying what all-out war in the Middle East will cost. By paying that price now, we won’t be able to blame the increase on their war, once it starts in earnest.
Tony speaks for alot of greedy oil Republicans – just take the damn oil and not care – right?
It is this thinking that has got us into the current mess in Iraq. The US is already seen as some imperialistic devil in which the pure Islamists have to kill.
A better way, Tony, would be for the US to get off the Mideast Oil teat once and for all and tend to our own business in our own backyard.
Even better way would be to stop pouring our US dollars around every foreign country and start taking care of our own citizens.
That, Tony, would be the better way but I don’t hear any Republicans spouting these ideas because they are not profit-driven ways. The only thing a Republican worships is the almighty dollar – no matter what they had to do to get it.
How about we prosecute Bush for war crimes in exchange for Al-Quaeda leaving Iraq? It’s a win-win situation.
“Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us. Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform in times of need.”
Hey Doug – how about we put it on pay-per-view and wipe out the national debt? I’m sure the entire planet would like to see George W. squirm, stammer and look like a deer caught in the headlights.
I don’t think there would be much money made on that pay-per-vier. We can see W “squirm, stammer and look like a deer caught in the headlights” for free anytime he tries to pronounce nucular. Or if someone in the media slips in a question his ‘handlers’ had not already approved.
Good idea Cat. If everyone watched it on television like the OJ trial then we’d pay for the occupation and nobody would die because they’re inside watching the show (except for those in Iraq who still don’t have electricity).
That sounds good in theory but getting off their oil would require draconian solutions. Would you be willing to outlaw vehicles that get less than 25MPG?? Good bye to things like the Ford Expedition- one of the top selling SUVs in the country. Or would you put up with rationing that would allow you only 20 gallons a week? Or would you rather pay $5 a gallon? That is the ONLY way you will get off mid east oil.
Kev,
“Or would you rather pay $5 a gallon? That is the ONLY way you will get off mid east oil.”
Europe has very high gasoline prices, but that has FAILED to produce the state-of-art cars that we need, and can build.
I suggest reading ‘Oil Endgame’, and then reevaluating your opinion.http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
This is true but keep in mind that Europe is much more dense than the USA, has excellent public transportation systems and rail networks and you see alot more Toyotas there and alot less Expeditions. That is not the American way of life and people here would be very resistant to having the size of their vehicles cut down.
“Kev,
“Or would you rather pay $5 a gallon? That is the ONLY way you will get off mid east oil.”
Europe has very high gasoline prices, but that has FAILED to produce the state-of-art cars that we need, and can build.
I suggest reading ‘Oil Endgame’, and then reevaluating your opinion.”
It goes to show how the ambitous are so indifferently amoral in their self-aggrandizing. Kerrey did not find the patron for his political ego back East, but he knows there is fertile ground in his former home-stae of Nebraska, where he can exploit his own military and war expereince to nullify Chuck Hagel’s credentials while pandering to the right-leaning Nebraska electorate.
In short, Bob Kerrey’s editorial is less the expression of independent thinking and more the exploitation of the lack of a credible Republican primary challenge to their maverick Hagel.
LH
“Kerrey is just saying what Hillary and the others already know. Our stay in Iraq is going to meausred in terms of DECADES and not “months”. We simply have no other options there.”
Say Kev, Hillary and Obama are not saying we will be there for decades. They are advocating a withdrawal in a matter of months.
So, was November 2006 a mandate for immediate withdrawal from Iraq or not?