Iraq War

Bumped. I'm not sure I agree (see my comment), but it's an interesting question. --Mike

Yesterday, while standing in line at my bank (to get some quarters, because, well, why else would I actually need to consult a bank teller?), I heard the familiar & eerie voice of the presumptive Republican nominee. The voice was coming from the two televisions above the bank windows, which are constantly tuned to CNN, & from that voice I heard something like this:

"I would rather lose an election & win a war ... Barack Obama would rather win an election & lose a war ..."

(The statement was followed, of course, by that creepy smile, which flashes as embarrassingly as an "applause" sign above a studio audience.)

This line of argument (or rhetoric) is an example of imprecise thinking for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that, in the context of Iraq, the clear dichotomy between winning & losing is not evident. Also, another less obvious, but still paramount, fact to understand before launching into a tirade about anyone "wanting us to lose", is that, technically, we already won the war.

The War on Iraq (or the "Iraq War", or "the war for the liberation of Iraq") was executed masterfully by Coalition forces (led by the American military) in 2003. We invaded (on 20 March 2003) & toppled Saddam's Ba'athist in something like 26 days, with Baghdad falling on 9 April 2003, & the invasion declared "over" on the 15 April. & while "Mission Accomplished" was some sort of cruel hyperbole, it was not inaccurate to say we had achieved, militarily, what the Bush Administration had set out to do. (Here, I'm trying to suspend my understanding that, for all intents & purposes, we were probably lied into this war, & that we should have been focusing on al Qaeda, etc., but, you know ...)

Then came the occupation & the attempt to set up a stable, democratic, peaceful Iraq with the ability to defend herself, principally, from insurgents, many of which were former Ba'ath Party members, as well as members of the military who were purged during "Jerry" Bremer's de-baathification. Ostensibly, while military operations are still going on in Iraq (though the "surge" may have ended), it is not precise (nor is it accurate) to use terms like "winning" or "losing" or "victory" or "defeat" with regards to the situation ... All we have are benchmarks, or key attributes, that we hope the Iraqi Republic can attain to someday. I hope they can, honestly, so something good can come out of this ill-conceived conflict.

The question is, & this election will be a referendum on this, what is the best road, now, for Iraq to follow in order to become able to govern & defend herself, to promote employment, modernization, religious pluralism & moderation, & to be a stable, democratic model for other countries in the region? (Although, I must admit, I am skeptical that what has been termed "Jeffersonian democracy", including ensuring the basic freedoms we cherish in this country, can ever take root there, but I'd like to be proven wrong ...)

My feeling is, when our troops withdraw, Iraqis will stand up & take ownership in each of these areas, & not the reverse. They've already told us they want us out. Now (& this, I think, tends to be Obama's view) this will not mean total disengagement from Iraq, but we do need to take an American face off of this occupation, & replace it with one that is less detested in the region & specifically in that country.

Is that "losing", or "admitting defeat"? Absolutely not - it's intelligently & purposefully trying to find a decent & honorable end to conflict that probably should have never been waged in the first place. It's also, incidentally, a responsible way to promote Iraqi self-governance (& sovereignty) &, ultimately, stability in the region.

Graduating students at Yale did not take kindly to a speech delivered this weekend on "Class Day" - one of the many events involved in the Yale commencement weekend. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered the address, and his presence was protested by a number of students due to his support of the war in Iraq:

Mr Blair's arrival was met by a small but vocal contingent of protestors waving placards that read "No to Blair" and "Yale! Don't Support a War Criminal", but police held them back from the ceremony, which was held in a large gated garden.

But as he took to the podium, Mr Blair, 54, was met with dozens of red signs that students had hidden under their graduation robes, reading "Peace Now" and "No War".

One student, a young woman wearing a headscarf, stood throughout the ceremony, holding a "Peace Now" sign above her head just 10ft in front of the former Prime Minister, who appeared to be doing his best to avoid looking at her.

Mr Blair also avoided referring to Iraq by name as he talked about the rise of India and China as future world superpowers, the problem of climate change, and the threat of "terrorism fueled by religion".

Normally I'm skeptical of student anti-war protests. While throwing a pie in Tom Friedman's face might be emotionally satisfying on some level, it accomplishes very little in the way of real change. In recent years, students have achieved far greater success on campus when their protests were directed at their college or university. Over the past half decade, student protests have helped establish a living wage for workers at Harvard, many campuses, bowing to student pressure have divested from regimes involved in human rights abuses, and many more campuses have made strides toward becoming carbon neutral thanks to the pressure of students. The same cannot be said of student anti-war efforts.

That may be changing. Over the course of the last year, a number of high-profile war supporters have found less than hospitable environments on the campuses of America's high schools and universities. Earlier this year students at the elite boarding school Choate successfully protested plans to have Karl Rove deliver their commencement address, and Alberto Gonzalez, the disgraced former Attorney General, has found it quite difficult to raise money for his legal defense fund via speaking engagements on campuses.

One of the great traditions of politics is that after you work your ass off in the White House or some appropriately high-level government position for 5 - 8 years, you get to retire, write a book, teach or consult a little, and deliver speeches all over the country. All of these tend to pay pretty well, compensating the writer/teacher/lecturer admirably for their many years of service for which they were compensated well below their earnings potential. For a select few - most recently President Clinton who earned millions on the lecture circuit after his retirement - it's the cherry on top of the pie of a career government service.

Denying government officials like Rove, Gonzalez, and even Tony Blair, lucrative speaking engagements and high profile awards like honorary degrees won't stop the war. But at least it effectively hits those who supported the war where it hurts - in their pocketbooks and reputations. That's a whole lot better then just some pie in the face.

The great people at WesPAC and BraveNewFilms are drawing attention to a very important bill that is scheduled to appear today on the House floor.

Mike talked about the joint venture between Sen. Webb and Sen. Hagel last November when they began to make rumbles about it. Its sad that its only now getting traction, but hey.. its the sausages being made.

I sat down with Bill Smith a thirty-something Gen X'er who served in the first Iraq war and received the Bronze Star.

AK: when did you go into the service?

Smith: June 1989

AK: Why?

Smith: I felt obligated to as a citizen you know, it was giving back and a family has a history of it. You know, also for the challenge to myself.

AK: Were there any expectations you had about it?

Smith: Not really, I wasn't really thinking about expectations I knew what I was getting into in terms of basic training and the job I was getting into.

AK: did you expect to have college be paid for?

Smith: No. I knew I was going to be paying into the GI bill, its not something you get at no cost, most people don't know that. When I did it in '89 it was $100 of your monthly pay check for the first year went into the [GI] bill and you had to serve 3 years to get it something like that... I can't really remember for certain...

The impression I had was that it would help pay for college. I don't know if they still have it but there is the Army College Fund that you get based on your ASVB score. That's where you might qualify you for certain specialties or incentives but I don't know if they still do that. I didn't get the ACF but, I thought it was like $25,000 which would pay a significant fund. Today, of course it wouldn't and I don't know if they still do it.

AK: Did most people you served with think that they would have college paid for?

Smith: Idon't know - it wasn't really top of the conversation, so I'm not really sure. I don't think any of us thought it would cover all of the costs of college I knew it wouldn't I assumed everyone else knew. I knew it might help pay for college.

AK: Do you have any student loan debt now from school?

Smith: Oh yes. Lots of student loan debt

AK: Do you feel cheated at all?

Smith: I think a lot of student think that you pay the price of your education but you never get compensated by employers in terms of salary for that. I think most students feel that way. Colleges sell it as an investment and then you pay for it the rest of your life. Like now, I have a 30 year mortgage for my education. I mean this goes deeper than the GI Bill but it makes me mad.

AK: What do you think about the existing GI Bill?

Smith: The GI Bill for me didn't pay my tuition - and I don't know if the current one would. Or if it was even designed to pay for our troops to go to school. I think the most value was maybe $600 a month for me. But it paid my moving expenses and sometimes rent and food. It supplemented my income. It helped but it didn't pay for college at all.

AK: Should it?

Smith: Yeah. Particularly for people who put themselves in harms way in times of conflict or war. I think its not just the sacrifice the troops are making, being away from their children or families or having fun with friends, but the physical and mental effects combat has on an individual.

We should support them in ways that help them transition out of the armed forces and providing them with educational benefits is a key to that. Even the VA benefits is a part of that. But veterans are the highest homeless population in the country - and that's a problem. Whether thats a result of no education or other mental health issues I think there's a relationship there.

Education is supposed to open the doors to life... ya know?

AK: What did you think of the video?

Smith: The video was powerful. I'm shocked I didn't even realize, I mean, I had known that they were going to do this, and change it, but I was shocked McCain wasn't cosponsoring and I tried to find out why and I just don't understand why he's not co-sponsoring the bill. The message I left on the website basically said he's selling himself as a supporter of the troops but his words aren't turning into action. The words are meaningless unless he's going to take care of us. And clearly he isn't.

Bill graduated from Baker University in Kansas in 2003. The current Congresswoman for his district (mine as well) Rep. Nancy Boyda is a co-sponsor of HR 2702.

It has yet to be determined why someone like John McCain is not.

Campus Progress just announced that it is offering $200-$1,000 micro grants to students doing anti-war activism on campus. And up to $300 in travel grants to students traveling to marches, rallies, conferences, etc. dedicated to stopping the war in Iraq.

Get the details here.

This is a really good idea - not just for working to end the war, but in general. The Leadership Institute, a right-wing training organization, has a campus program that does microgranting. It’s been used to bring conservative speakers to campus, fund the start up of conservative publications - all manner of conservative student activism.