Burying the War
I find the continuing efforts to minimize the significance of the Iraq War debate in recent political events somewhat baffling. The very sharp Derek Chollet, for example, observes that progressives seem to be largely over the bitter feuds over national security policy that were so predominant five years ago. But rather than attribute this, correctly, to the marginalization of the Iraq Hawk mentality we’re told that “this consensus is not built on the worldviews of the old left or the liberal blogosphere” and that “[a]lthough strong critics of the Iraq War, Obama and Biden are hardly doves–they have called for doing more to end the genocide in Darfur and have advocated the use of force to kill Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.”
This only makes sense if you take the liberal blogosphere as having been pushing a policy of blanket pacifism and think that the most agonizing debate inside the Democratic Party in recent years was over whether or not killing Osama bin Laden would be desirable. Clearly, though, the big debate was about Iraq; back in 2003, Will Marshall was arguing that Iraq War opponents like Howard Dean represented a waning current of “McGovernism”. And in November 2002, Peter Beinart warned that if Democrats embraced Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to the Iraq War they would “be in a kind of McGovernite wilderness for a generation.”
Now from the perspective of 2008, Pelosi led to Democrats capturing a House majority that they’re now regarded as all-but-certain to expand. Dean lost the primary to John Kerry, who soon after losing a general election admitted that Dean had been right about Iraq after all, and now he’s Chair of the DNC and the Democratic brand has never been stronger. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton managed to lose a primary despite daunting advantages to an opponent who almost certainly wouldn’t have even been in the race had she opposed the war. I wouldn’t want to suggest that Obama (Pelosi or Dean) was or is getting his foreign policy ideas from “the liberal blogosphere” — but he seems to be getting them from a group of foreign policy experts that disproportionately draws from the pool of people who, like him, never thought that a unilateral preventive war with Iraq was an appropriate response to 9/11.
It’s true that the progressive community is now largely united on these questions, but that’s because the vast majority of progressives have come around to the view that Iraq was a mistake that we need to bring to an end not because people decided we need to tune out bloggers.
45 Responses to “Burying the War”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
” I wouldn’t want to suggest that Obama (Pelosi or Dean) was or is getting his foreign policy ideas from “the liberal blogosphere” — but he seems to be getting them from a group of foreign policy experts that disproportionately draws from the pool of people who, like him, never thought that a unilateral preventive war with Iraq was an appropriate response to 9/11.”
So this means that Matthew isn’t advising Obama or Pelosi or Dean?
August 28th, 2008 at 8:44 am
And in November 2002, Peter Beinart warned that if Democrats embraced Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to the Iraq War they would “be in a kind of McGovernite wilderness for a generation.”
Opposing the Iraq Invasion on the grounds that “it would, like, look totally bad for the Defeatocrats” may seem like an unbelievably lame reason, but in Beinart’s defense, he was on the side of angels on this issue. Just ask him.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:46 am
“because people decided we need to tune out bloggers.”
Tuning out bloggers is going to be the lesson taken for the ‘12 Democratic nomination process…
August 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Yes, killing Bin Laden will do so much for the cause of ending Islamic sourced terrorism worldwide. The symbolism of his violent death at the hands of the U.S. military would assuredly be an unequaled home run in geopolitical action. Similarly the untimely demise of Grover Norquist and Karl Rove would cause the American conservative movement to fold their tent and cede the next several presidential elections to Democrats uncontested. Any thoughts of redoubling their efforts in the face of losing iconic, charismatic and (allegedly) brilliant leaders would be immediately dismissed as folly and doomed to failure.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Off Topic:
But why is absolutely no one in the blogosphere mentioning yesterday’s Caro Op-Ed on LBJ’s 100th birthday and the voting rights act?
August 28th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I feel better hearing Petey’s warnings, since he’s always wrong on each and every topic he chooses to issue his dire warnings on.
But on a topic of actual importance, yes, it is true that the pundits, and most of the Democratic establishment, consistently think the hawks are basically always right and that the Democrats’ main task is to establish that they’re not dirty fringe hippie liberal extremists.
(The difference is that Democratic hawks think our hawks are always righter than the Republican hawks, but in the end they’d rather stand with a hawk, no matter what the party.)
In the service of that belief, such establishmentarians will also try to screw any actual reality up so that it seems to have proven them right, even when they were wrong.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
The one thing that Petey can’t tolerate, seemingly, is the idea of an anti-war candidate, or the idea that progressive values might occasionally have something to do with foreign policy.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Er…”Opposing” should be “supporting”
August 28th, 2008 at 9:25 am
“The one thing that Petey can’t tolerate, seemingly, is the idea of an anti-war candidate, or the idea that progressive values might occasionally have something to do with foreign policy.”
I just care about progressive majorities. The only issue with high salience for me is that of economic justice and economic growth. I care to a far lesser degree about the details of foreign policy, just as long as psychotic idiots like the current crew in the WH aren’t running things.
I’m perfectly fine with a muscular foreign policy as long as it’s done in a sane and productive manner, such as the Clinton administration foreign policy. But I’m not wedded to that either.
If you can put together an anti-war coalition that can win elections and govern while including serious economic justice and economic growth, well then, I’ll be happy to sign your petition.
In the meantime, the only governing majority coalition I can see is one which employs a more Biden/Holbrooke kind of foreign policy than I’d imagine you’d be comfortable with.
—–
But back to O/T:
Seriously, why isn’t anyone writing about the Caro Op-Ed? Seems timely to me…
August 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I am trying to stay on board the Democratic unity train now that we are in the election stretch run. But there are two foreign policy themes that have become standard Democratic talking points this week, and that are really beginning to irk me. One is the one-dimensional, demagogic portrayals of the events in Georgia.
But by far the worse of the two is the new harping and carping about the Iraqi budget surplus. The message here seems to be that the Iraqis are a bunch of money-hording ingrates, insufficiently thankful for the benefits of invasion, death and occupation. The suggestion is that we Americans have born most of the costs of Iraq, and that the reason we should leave is that the Iraqis refuse to step up and do their share in a manner commensurate with our selfless awesomeness. This attempt to portray the Iraqis as the latest bunch of villainously rich and selfish oil-Arabs, rolling in the dough while Americans suffer, thoroughly disgusts me.
Let’s get this straight: much of Iraq lies in ruins. hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in Iraq; more have been maimed for life; millions of refugees have been scattered; criminal rackets have run rampant; families have been uprooted and ethically cleansed in a forced ethnic-sectarian reconstruction of the country; and the Iraqi economy and infrastructure still mostly lie in tatters. This is all the direct result of an American invasion that served no legitimate defensive purpose, and was based on a conspiracy of lies and disinformation. Until the United States has the moral integrity to acknowledge the crime it has visited upon the Iraqi people, I am never going to be square with my country and my government. I refuse to go along with this shameless blame-the-Iraqis scam.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:53 am
The only issue with high salience for me is that of economic justice and economic growth.
And this is why your attempts to attack Obama (and Matt, and Ezra, etc. etc.) from the left bother me. The left is an *international* phenomenon. You present yourself as some kind of leftist, and present the *Clintons* as some kind of leftists, but I honestly don’t think you understand what the left even *is*. You’re a populist and, dare I speculate, a nationalist – not a leftist.
That’s why your attacks on Obama etc. all cause whiplash – because to you “the left” means nothing more than economic growth and universal health care for Americans. Advocating that position is one thing – but redefining what “left” is as Clintonism is one reason why your views get no traction around here, and why people don’t even understand you half the time. Clinton was a highly effective president from your point of view, and you *should* by all means advocate his & Hillary’s views over Obama’s, but by claiming that you or the Clintons are to the left of Obama is bewildering — good luck finding a Clintonite among real leftists.
To a real leftist the working class is international, and foreign policy is continuous with domestic policy. That’s why most leftists (assorted Marxists and post-Marxist types) align themselves with Obama – he is the candidate of hope for the *international* left, which is almost a tautology. His health care proposals are inferior, from my point of view and yours – but he’s still to the left of Clinton precisely because of his internationalism.
Why internationalism? Capitalism is a global phenomenon; you can’t oppose or even ameliorate it without a similarly global movement. You *can’t* have have a working-class paradise at home and an empire abroad — imperialism and unrestrained capitalism are the same on the *inside*.
If you want universal health care, you need to get out of Iraq first, and not just for financial reasons. You can’t be Exxon’s dog abroad and oppose G.E. (to use your favorite hobby-horse) at home, because they are one and the same.
I sure don’t mind that you harp on health care – but you lose all credibility when you imagine yourself and the Clintons as leftist. You’re no leftist, and you’ll make a lot more sense when you stop pretending that you are.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Just to clarify – I’m not claiming that Obama is an authentic leftist, but that he was properly the preferred candidate of the left. That’s a big difference, obviously.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Dan Kervick’s right, but I don’t see either one of these changing, because it seems the entire Democratic mainstream has glommed on to both. Why Democrats can’t go after Georgia, Russia, AND John McCain and his Georgian-hired lobbyist advisers for being reckless and warlike when it does no one any good, I’d say “I don’t know”, except I do, and it’s the subject of Matt’s post.
And on Iraq and its surplus, I knew from the beginning of the war that any Democratic move to pull the U.S. occupation out of Iraq would be based on a PR campaign to blame the Iraqis, and that has been true since late 2003 / early 2004. This is the newer version of blaming the Iraqis. Any spin which doesn’t blame the Iraqis and Bush Jr. specifically veers to close to a deep critique of U.S. policy which the Democratic establishment isn’t willing to have anything to do with.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Please, be carefull in engaging Petey troll, because if there is nothing else valuable in his perspective, he is tireless.
Few Clinton fetishists are able to recall that Hillary destroyed health care reform in 1993 by backing the elite, plutocratic “managed care” plan from the Jackson Hole corporate master meetings which would have given all of U.S. health care to the 5 largest HMO’s and insurers, with little benefit to us working people for the effort either.
But somehow the Clintons are supposed to be magic on health care and Obama is somehow its enemy because he has staffed his campaign with either action Clinton people or people identical to the Clinton administration.
Me, I think we’re going to get Hillary’s current health care plan because I think she’s going to push it through the Senate, probably with Kennedy’s name also on it, and will be the general shepherdess of the effort, and Obama will sign it.
Thankfully, under President Obama, Hillary will finally be able to relax from pushing for health care reform to actually passing it, and she’ll make national history in the process.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
most of the Democratic establishment, consistently think the hawks are basically always right and that the Democrats’ main task is to establish that they’re not dirty fringe hippie liberal extremists.
This is the problem in a nutshell – and it’s certainly not a new phenomenon, cf. Kennedy vs Nixon on foreign policy.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Burying the War is the right lede but Matthew didn’t mention the way Obama and Biden are burying the war.
The Republicans got us into a disastrous war based on a despicable WMD hoax that has killed 4000+ Americans and up to a million Iraqis while costing us $3 trillion while practicing torture and wiping their ass with the Constitution.
But they didn’t mention any of that last night. As a commenter on Easchaton said yesterday, these are the knockout punches that the Democrats are too afraid to throw.
In the meantime, Obama steadily lost ground to McCain from mid-June up until yesterday. But so far the convention “bump” amounts to about a half a point in the national average. Obama is pulling another Kerry with the weak attacks on McCain and may pull another Kerry by running only the 2nd convention ever that didn’t result in a significant bump in the polls.
The Republicans are not nearly so stupid. They will tear Obama a new one at their Convention and McCain will probably be in the lead by the end of next week.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:31 am
it’s a small point, and i realize that it’s become an article of faith, but i don’t know why we should believe that obama wouldn’t have run if hillary clinton had been more actively opposed to the iraq war.
i look at obama and say that he concluded that his window was now, while he was still a fresh face: it’s not like he’s gene mccarthy or george mcgovern, animated by his anti-war position….
August 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
What Petey fails to realize is that his desperate desire to suck up to the hawks by advocating a “muscular” foreign policy (the buzzword of the terminally insecure) is that it just empowers the “pychotics in the white house.”
It was that “mindset” which led us into the war in Iraq and that distracts us from getting anything useful done, domestically.
But, hey, Petey thinks that this is the way to finally get the sweet, sweet nectar of southern white male votes.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
i don’t know why we should believe that obama wouldn’t have run if hillary clinton had been more actively opposed to the iraq war.
Obama still would have run, but his odds of winning the nomination would have been much lower.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Yglesias continues to use the word “pacifism” in a misleading way. I don’t think there is any mainstream politician who is committed to a rigorous pacifism, which would include refusing to use violence even in self-defense. The proper word might be something more like “isolationism” — we’re going to keep to ourselves and not nose into the affairs of others, but we’ll fight back if attacked.
See this post for more information — including the fact that even Noam Chomsky isn’t a pacifist in the rigorous sense.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I don’t think most people who use the word “pacifism” in political discussion care what it means, in the slightest; they mean it as a stand in for things they’d prefer to say, such as coward, or surrendercrat, or commie stinko radical, or dirty hippie fringe liberal extremist.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:59 am
tyro, just to follow the point up: i don’t agree, or at least i don’t agree completely.
my belief is that iowa was the difference-maker: had clinton won iowa and then followed it with new hampshire and super tuesday, we’d all be talking about obama’s impressive vp speech last night.
and i don’t think the data from iowa shows that anti-warness was the decisive feature there.
now maybe obama doesn’t raise the kind of money he raised if he weren’t the only “pure” opponent of iraq in the race; maybe he doesn’t get the support of all those volunteers. we’re really into unknowable territory here.
but matthew’s original point – that obama “almost certainly” wouldn’t have been in the race if hillary had opposed the war – isn’t really based on anything that i can see….
August 28th, 2008 at 11:10 am
I don’t think there is any mainstream politician who is committed to a rigorous pacifism, which would include refusing to use violence even in self-defense. The proper word might be something more like “isolationism” — we’re going to keep to ourselves and not nose into the affairs of others, but we’ll fight back if attacked.
Yes, but you can’t find any mainstream politicians who are committed to isolationism either. Nor is isolationism – a policy of “keeping to ourselves” – common at all on the left and in the lefty netroots. Most lefties are committed internationalists, who want to increase the level of US engagement with the rest of the world, and extend US commitments to international institutions of many different kinds. The internationalist left is suspicious of forms of “engagement” that disdain being governed by an international rule of law, and that are merely expressions of self-interested great power flexing itself around the world.
The left also tends to oppose militarism, a rather particular kind of “nosing into” the affairs of others. We perceive militarism as something like an avid national addiction to, and dependency on, the profitable business of war, armies and weapons, and to the use of threats of violence and killing as routine tools of imperial statecraft rather than as a last recourse, justified mainly by the needs of self-defense, under some time-honored thinking about the difference between just wars and unjust wars.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
but matthew’s original point – that obama “almost certainly” wouldn’t have been in the race if hillary had opposed the war – isn’t really based on anything that i can see….
Yeah why would he pick Biden for VP then? Biden voted for the war and is sort of a liberal hawk, talking tough on Georgia, etc, even if now he’s going along with Obama and the more peaceable wing of the party. Biden and Hillary seem identical on the hawkishness scale.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Dan Kervick: very well said Mr. Kervick
August 28th, 2008 at 11:13 am
howard, understandable. I think this is one of those “agree to disagree” situations when it comes to the counterfactual. I don’t think Obama would have had any room to “brand” himself and differentiate his candidacy from Hillary Clinton’s if not for her unapologetic support for the war and for the Kyl-Lieberman bill.
Maybe because a lot of war-related things about Obama’s candidacy tipped me over the edge in his favor that I see this as an important piece of his candidacy, but I think that without setting up the race as between pro-war Clinton and “this was a mistake, bring the troops home” Obama, you don’t really have a narrative or an enthusiastic cadre of activists working for the campaign that allow Obama to win.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:34 am
tyro, just to wrap this up: i find it easier to believe (although we’ll never know) that the obama campaign (as opposed to obama himself) was animated by an anti-iraq position than i do to believe that obama wouldn’t have run if only hillary had opposed the war in the first place.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The only issue with high salience for me is that of economic justice and economic growth. I care to a far lesser degree about the details of foreign policy, just as long as psychotic idiots like the current crew in the WH aren’t running things. I’m perfectly fine with a muscular foreign policy as long as it’s done in a sane and productive manner, such as the Clinton administration foreign policy. But I’m not wedded to that either.
Petey, you have every right to be perfectly fine with a conservative foreign policy. What’s irksome is that you want to claim the mantle of policing the Democratic Party against what you see as right-wing apostasy (i.e., your complaints about Obama’s domestic agenda) while simultaneously declaring that you have no problem with a right-wing foreign policy.
Look, Matt’s partially wrong about this. The left-wing position on foreign policy is dovishness. Not that no liberal ever advocates going to war, but that we believe that war is a very bad thing (indeed, that the death and destruction that it causes makes it much worse than many of the domestic policy failures that you care about) and that it needs to be avoided. There are disagreements among the left as to how narrow the justification for war has to be. But the position that we should throw our power around and dominate the world and use war as just another tool in the toolkit is the conservaitve position. And the people who have advocated this policy in the Democratic Party are right wingers on foreign policy. And that includes your heroes, the two Clintons and Edwards.
Again, the point is not to say that I’m right and you are wrong. You may very well be right, both in your advocacy of hawkishness and your belief that issues of war and peace are less important than domestic policy issues. It is simply to say that you are in no position to police the Democratic Party for left-wing bona fides given your attitudes towards war and peace, an issue that many of us liberals find both tremendously important and where we have grave disagreements with your approach to the issue.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:04 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Great site, Good info viagra